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?
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.