Founder of Adobe Dies at Age 81 (gizmodo.com) 98
Long-time Slashdot reader sandbagger brings the news that Charles 'Chuck' Geschke, the co-founder of Adobe, had died at the age of 81.
The company started in co-founder John Warnock's garage in 1982, and was named after the Adobe Creek which ran behind Warnock's home, offering pioneering capabilities in "What you see is what you get" (or WYSIWYG) desktop publishing.
Gizmodo reports: "This is a huge loss for the entire Adobe community and the technology industry, for whom he has been a guide and hero for decades," Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen wrote in an email to staff.
"As co-founders of Adobe, Chuck and John Warnock developed groundbreaking software that has revolutionized how people create and communicate, " he continued. "Chuck instilled a relentless drive for innovation in the company, resulting in some of the most transformative software inventions, including the ubiquitous PDF, Acrobat, Illustrator, Premiere Pro and Photoshop."
After earning a doctorate from Carnegie Mellon University, Geschke met Warnock while working at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, according to the Mercury News. The two left the company in 1982 and founded Adobe to develop software. Their first product was Adobe PostScript, which Narayen lauded as "an innovative technology that provided a radical new way to print text and images on paper and sparked the desktop publishing revolution."
The company started in co-founder John Warnock's garage in 1982, and was named after the Adobe Creek which ran behind Warnock's home, offering pioneering capabilities in "What you see is what you get" (or WYSIWYG) desktop publishing.
Gizmodo reports: "This is a huge loss for the entire Adobe community and the technology industry, for whom he has been a guide and hero for decades," Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen wrote in an email to staff.
"As co-founders of Adobe, Chuck and John Warnock developed groundbreaking software that has revolutionized how people create and communicate, " he continued. "Chuck instilled a relentless drive for innovation in the company, resulting in some of the most transformative software inventions, including the ubiquitous PDF, Acrobat, Illustrator, Premiere Pro and Photoshop."
After earning a doctorate from Carnegie Mellon University, Geschke met Warnock while working at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, according to the Mercury News. The two left the company in 1982 and founded Adobe to develop software. Their first product was Adobe PostScript, which Narayen lauded as "an innovative technology that provided a radical new way to print text and images on paper and sparked the desktop publishing revolution."
Re: (Score:1)
Then fix the F'd-Up Web [Can PDF die too now.] (Score:5, Insightful)
The Web's lame/inconsistent font positioning prevents DOM/css from replacing PDF's. The web's positioning problem needs to be fucking fixed! Otherwise, stop bitching about PDF's. There are many side-effects of this gap, such as reliable web-based ERD and flow-charting UI's.
The web defenders keep making lame excuses like client-side device size adaptability etc. That's wonderful WHEN you need it, but sucks bigtime for charts and other items that need real font WYSIWYG. It's not mutually exclusive. Push to plug the hole or you deserve goddam PDF's forever and ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Then fix the F'd-Up Web [Can PDF die too now.] (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite a few, although I think what you really meant to say was, "not me".
Re: (Score:1)
I'm more than willing to back up my claims with evidence, details, and follow-up responses. Granted, some of these issues are subjective, such as "hard to use", but I'll try my best to articulate my position on such matters.
Re: (Score:1)
So "accept shit, it's The Way"? And CSS does worse than mis-align, it often overlaps and covers things up when auto-flow goes wrong. It doesn't degrade properly.
Re: (Score:1)
Many are voting against your viewpoint by using PDF's. I'm just the messenger. If the boss wants it blue, make it blue; it's not your call. You might not care that stuff ends up goofed up in output, but many do. You might not care if you have split ends (hair), but millions do. People want X, and web isn't delivering such that they go with PDF to get it. If we had better text positioning
Re: (Score:1)
If people didn't care about precise positioning of text, there wouldn't be so many complaints about Microsoft Word [word-tips.com] and how it screws up text when you insert an image or move something around. When you have pages devoted [howtogeek.com] on how to hopefully make things not go wonky when inserting a picture [oxen.tech], you know people care about precise positioning.
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said, PDF's wouldn't be so popular if nobody cared. An office worker can't hire a web designer every time they want to publish a relatively trivial or specialized document. And ERD and flowcharts, among other kinds of charts need it. Charts are fucky if different clients or printers display the text in different positions. I've seen managers yell at techies because of those sort of things. Managers and end-users often want WYSIWYG. You can claim it's out of style or it's "non semantic" a million time
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the alternatives are buggy, have long learning curves, and/or are inconsistent. Bootstrap is a friggen mess if you wish to do anything non-trivial, for example. It was designed for social media, not real work.
Re: (Score:1)
You have too much sunshine rainbow idealism that orgs will spend billions to produce, tune, and test semantic-only content. The worse-is-better pattern usually wins out on Earth. [wikipedia.org] You are thinking like a MIT.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not solving a problem, it's shifting the burden to the reader.
Hey! I'm proposing the industry come up with a new good OPEN solution that does what's needed. I'm only saying PDF's are popular because they solve a problem web cannot, but that doesn't mean PDF's are 100% wonderful, only that they have a feature/chara
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and that's a problem for certain needs.
For e-brochures, maybe, but the types of apps and uses I already mentioned DO need consistent text positioning. And it's unrealistic for every document producer to be an expert on semantic layout and "responsive" web design. It may be great job security for HTML/CSS experts, but not practical economically to have an army of semantic layout experts floa
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not following your argument here. Most employees know how to use the likes of MS-Word in a good-enough way, so you are reporting a non-problem. Further, when word-processors wrap text, you see it happen immediately. You don't have to worry about it wrapping different on device number 4927809473 without warning (although Word does have bugs).
Good auto-flow isn't easy to do nor easy to test and debug, unless you stick with trivial presentation. Maybe someday a good auto-flow framework with a low enough le
Re: (Score:1)
Who is this "we"? Did somebody elect you God? People "vote" to use PDF's because the web mangles their work in the name of misplaced semantic idealism.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't SVG solve those issues?
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't tested its cross-brand/version font positioning consistency, but it wasn't designed for interactivity such that interactive charting seems difficult. And if you want any GUI widgets, you have to reinvent them from scratch. It may have improved since I looked at it, so don't quote me yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I didn't realize PDF handled the interactive elements very well.
Re: (Score:1)
Editable PDF's support the usual form controls such as drop-down lists, radio buttons, etc. I don't know if PDF's work well for charts, though, as I haven't tried it much. I'm not necessarily suggesting we clone the PDF interface language, only that we learn from it when making an HTTP-able standard for accurate/reliable text, line, & GUI widget placement.
"Relentless drive for innovation" (Score:2)
I guess that must've vanished about the time this guy retired, then - because I've never noticed it.
Re:"Relentless drive for innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They've developed innovative new ways of charging people for the rest of time for buying a piece of software.
Yes, they have and people are not happy about it [newsweek.com]. Especially when they signed up for a trial and were magically charged, or when they thought they signed up for a monthly plan but were instead charged for a yearly plan.
"Relentless drive for" flash. (Score:2)
Oh I'm sure everyone fondly remembers Flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about innovative, but they are by far the best software for desktop publishing.
There really isn't any software that can replace photoshop or illustrator.
InDesign has some competition (maybe).
I look at alternatives every now and again and improvement on them has slowed down and they aren't only not as good, they're not even passable.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention the grand daddy of publishing software, Framemaker. You want to write a book you go to Word. You want to write a library you use Framemaker.
Re: (Score:2)
As is the case with many important Adobe products... Adobe didn't create Framemaker - they purchased the company which created Framemaker.
And there generally isn't any competition because whenever a competitor reared its head, Adobe bought them out.
Adobe, Thanks for bringing serfdom to us all! (Score:3)
Re:Adobe, Thanks for bringing serfdom to us all! (Score:4, Insightful)
Commercial art and design software is difficult to build. OSS Gimp, for example, limits the color depth to 256 levels, and Blender has one of the worse UI's I've ever seen. Maybe someday they will catch up, but it's not an easy road. Good tools are rarely cheap. And Adobe's suite is mostly cross-compatible with each app. That's also worth a premium.
Re:Adobe, Thanks for bringing serfdom to us all! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
They can do that because there's insufficient competition, and there's insufficient competition largely because it's an expensive business to compete in. Corel seems to be the only one trying.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This means you could be paying for the rest of your life in order to retain simple ability to edit/revise projects you've already worked on.
Why are you constantly editing and revising projects you've already worked on? There's no reason you need to maintain a subscription just for the chance that one day you might have to edit an old project. Every so often I'll pay for a month or 2 of Photoshop usage for some project but there's no reason to keep paying if I'm not using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blender has one of the worse UI's I've ever seen.
Blender's UI is not Maya or 3DS Max's interface. Unfamiliar != bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Nor is it sane. If there's a rhyme or reason behind it, I'm clueless as to spotting it.
Re: (Score:3)
The old blender interface, 2.79, was painful to use. The new Blender interface to 2.8 is very well done. A new learning curve but a real improvement over the older hot mess. Give it a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blender has a bad UI? It must be bad if it's worse than Adobe's. Ok, I really only know about Acrobat, but with ugly large gray icons to do things that I really want to do with a menu item, and panels of mostly useless (to me) tools that take up a huge amount of screen room but which can't be modified, etc.; it makes Microsoft's Ribbons look good, which takes some doing. On my home computer I use the free version of PDF-XChange, which does what I need (the paid version does more) and is easy to use.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that Acrobat also has a poor UI. As bad as Blender? I don't believe so.
Re: (Score:3)
OSS Gimp, for example, limits the color depth to 256 levels
When did you last check? 2.10 has been out for a while now, and if you cared to try the development 2.9, that particular issue was solved quite a long time ago.
It's been years that I've been using GIMP 2.9 and 2.10 to process my astro photos, which absolutely requires better than 8-bit-per-channel color depth.
I prefer free and open source software on principle. I'll consider buying proprietary software if it's really necessary. Paying a rental, especially if it locks the user data into proprietary formats,
GIMP is _not_ 8bit only for a long time. (Score:3)
GIMP supports 8/16/32 bit colour depth setting. "GIMP all internal processing is done at 32-bit floating point precision".
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting choice to use 32 bit floats. Why not 64 bit? They are cheap on all modern hardware and the recommended default for floating point ops now. 32 bit can have some issues in certain cases.
Legacy perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a free market. If there is a sea of people screaming out for an alternative then create a competitor and make yourself a fortune.
Problem is that sea of people don't actually want to pay for the competitor. There already is a reasonably viable Free Software competitor in GIMP, it needs a few more features to get it to parity but nobody wants to pay developers to do the work.
There's really not many Adobe users that baulk at the cost of the subscription and those that do certainly aren't contributing much to the GIMP project via the GNOME Foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a free market. If there is a sea of people screaming out for an alternative then create a competitor and make yourself a fortune.
Problem is that sea of people don't actually want to pay for the competitor. There already is a reasonably viable Free Software competitor in GIMP, it needs a few more features to get it to parity but nobody wants to pay developers to do the work.
There's really not many Adobe users that baulk at the cost of the subscription and those that do certainly aren't contributing much to the GIMP project via the GNOME Foundation.
I prefer to pay for a competitor. I use affinity products, final cut pro and acorn. The free stuff comes into its own for format conversion. These meet my needs and entail a single purchase. I cut the adobe ties and removing acrobat from my machine was an unnecessarily difficult process. I don't know what the definition of "in the business" is, but our use is for graphical and video stuff for a business, so it's in the spectrum.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to pay for a competitor. I use affinity products, final cut pro and acorn.
Which means you're not in that "sea of people screaming out for a competitor" then are you.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to pay for a competitor. I use affinity products, final cut pro and acorn.
Which means you're not in that "sea of people screaming out for a competitor" then are you.
Neither is any other individual. No need to scream out either - the serious competitors are out there with good programs.
Re: (Score:2)
So you’re saying there’s no problem then?
I’m not overly well-versed with Affinity Photo, I’ve only used the iPad Pro version but I was pretty staggered about how good it is. In my limited experience with it I’d have no trouble believing you if you told me it’s a viable alternative to Photoshop virtually across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem that exists as far as I can see is the effective vendor lock in that Adobe has over its customers through file formats and abusive subscription schemes.
I doubt Affinity products meet the needs of some segment of hardcore doers of graphicy stuff but it certainly can meet the needs of anyone who isn't stuck in an Adobe based codependent file format relationship with customers and suppliers and who needs a photoshop or illustrator replacement.
Although it pains me to write it - for technical diagram
Re: (Score:2)
GIMP isn't lacking a few features for parity, it's lacking a few for usability.
There are some people that will need CMYK and Pantone color management which GIMP will never have (licensing). This is a minor ish for a lot of uses, but can be significant for some work flows.
GIMP doesn't have adjustment layers.
I'd bey GIMP doesn't really have vector objects.
I'd also bet that GIMP can't do spot colors.
These aren't features to bring it to parity, they're the bare minimum to make it usable in a desktop publishing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you are fortunate enough to use other tools where you can get a permanent license, some producers work with the same software for several years.
The good news is that viable alternatives are starting to emerge.
Affinity Photo is the up-and-coming competitor to Photoshop that serves the purpose for many, and Design and Publisher are quickly catching up to Illustrator and InDesign, respectively.
Corel Aftershot Pro and ACDSee are solid contenders for the Lightroom crown.
Premiere Pro is getting heat from DaVinci Resolve; its free edition is quickly becoming a favorite of Youtube content producers.
Magix is finally doing something useful with the Sonic Fou
Re: (Score:2)
How about open source apps?
There is Darkroom as an alternative to Lightroom, don't know if it is any good.
Blender has video editing but I heard Kdenlive was better.
Re: Adobe, Thanks for bringing serfdom to us all! (Score:2)
If you are moneyed, the adobe rental fee is a non-issue. If you have a precarious income, like most do, you are SOL. If you are fortunate enough to use other tools where you can get a permanent license, some producers work with the same software for several years.
Oh give me a break. Producer is demanding you use Adobe products? Then your getting paid by the producer at least $20 an hour. A creative cloud subscription can be had for $40 a month. That's $40/mo for every single tool an animator, video editor or graphic designer needs. If your business model can't afford $40/mo in overhead you have no business running a business.
You're making this sound like you need to be a Trump Son to afford an Adobe subscription. For students it's $20/mo. Which again is nothing. Yo
sTaRtEd In A GaRaGe (Score:1)
Fuck off with this shit, every big company that "started in a garage" neglects to mention the one at the head is a trust fund baby, already rich, or has years upon years of experience in the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs was a "trust fund baby"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the three apply, and your degree in statistics sucks.
Re: (Score:1)
None of the three apply what ? How about writing complete sentences and while your at it, write why you are correct reasons, proofs etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you read his biography for yourself? You'll make less mistakes that way.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why dont you learn to write a sentence that actually shares one point or example like a proper adult instead of writing worse than a 5 yo.
> You'll make less mistakes that way.
Good too see you have time to write two worthless sentences with childish crap but you dont have time to actually share an example to prove your point.
I pity your children if you have any, having a parent who calls them names and never shares or shows them something bet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Steve funded his Apple opperation by running everything on credit, buy the chips/boards/components all on 90 day credit.
Sell sell sell machines at 100% profit, pay Woz a tiny amount, pay suppliers on day 90. Repeat.
Re: (Score:1)
He was a rancid-smelling asshole I can tell you that at least.
I hope the cemetery... (Score:1)
...offers their plots with an overpriced, un-cancellable yearly subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too.
They do that in europe and it makes a lot more sense from a land use perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavens are a whole new level of "Creative Cloud"... :D
i came for a Flash joke (Score:3)
i'm disappointed.
Re:i came for a Flash joke (Score:4, Funny)
The joke is no longer supported on this platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we just didn't want to pay an ongoing monthly fee to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
i came for a Flash joke...i'm disappointed.
That's because Flash was a Macromedia product that Adobe bought decades later, rather than something that was programmed by Geschke or other Adobe developers until after they bought it.
Religion (Score:1)
"Founder.exe has stopped working" (Score:4, Funny)
"Click here to check online for a solution and close the program."
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the obvious "Fatal Error" joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>I believe Sony's NeWS used it too.)
Yep. We has NeWS on Sun workstations in college in 1990 and it used display postscript. It was obviously better than the other crappy window systems available at the time, although if it had succeeded, it would have turned into a security disaster of epic proportions, pushing executable code around for displaying stuff. It's a good thing we didn't go down that road with the web protocols.
Too soon (Score:1)
Kidnapped (Score:2)
Where all thing started. (Score:1)
Maybe its just me... (Score:1)