Chills

It depends on the market sector. In some it is standard practice.  Counter intuitively it is less expensive and faster to do it properly. I used to do presentations on this.  The thing missing is the vision.   To do it properly the cost is in the front end a lot of companies don't like this commitment.

Not sure Sun was benevolent, but the Oracle take over was not good.  It all seems so long ago when computing was fun. That was the period when I ended up on a platform partnered with Koenig debating against Strustrup and Glassborrow on the benefits of standardizing C.   That was when Strustrup suggested that now colour screens and printers were available C source files should be a to z and the AA, AB etc  and each function in each file should have the same name   ie "a()"  differentiated by colour. So you could only have 256 functions to a file for modularity. 

So would I.   Solaris was great.  Way ahead of both Apple and Microsoft.  Trouble is, it was not mass market and the Sun workstations were expensive.  but they were a joy to work on. 

It would. I myself would like to be able to use something different from Windows or macOS, but the sad truth is that depending on what you do, this is not really an option. Serif has already stated that they have no plans on porting Affinity apps to Linux. Moreovoer, even if they did change their opinion today, you would probably have to wait a few years to get a first working version. The only viable options for you are dual booting or finding alternative Linux software that suits your needs. Inkscape and Krita are two well known Linux native graphic design applications that you could try. Using Wine to run windows applications on Linux is, in many cases, not a reliable option in my experience.

STILL no bar code tool for ISBN's and ISSN's

A Publisher app that does not have one of the required tools for serious publishing. This is getting silly.
 

@thegary, this update was ALSO focused on PUBLISHER!…

Bumping and also interested to know this information/if a feature will be coming out to protect artist created content?

Everyone is jumping on the AI generated images bandwagon, including Adobe. It's all fun. Except for the artists who didn't consent to have their artwork used to train datasets, as Adobe Stock doesn't even have an opt-out feature yet from what I have read so far.
What I would love to see is how my art software can help protect my artwork against AI theft. There are already experimental tools being developed like Glaze. Maybe something with the export settings on an image where I can select a type of protection: noise like Glaze uses, heavy watermark pattern, etc.
You could create these manually but I think it's more convenient if there are ready options in the export panel where you can change the level of protection.
Would the team behind Affinity be interested in providing something like this?
 

Thats French, not italin, and don't you see, two times the same.

I do find it a bit confusing when people post a screen shot in a different language but don't quote what it says in the text. It's easy enough to translate text, but not so easy to find out what the text in a screen shot says! (Obviously in this case it doesn't really matter, I'm just making a general comment!)

What is the problem ?  I don't read Italian.  BTW is that on the MAC version?

The Affinity software package is a very cool graphic editing suite, but it lacks localization of programs into Ukrainian language. 

I knew it was French... I was just making the point that 99% on here use English, and he did not make it clear what the problem was or what the platform was.  People don't read message signatures 😞 

BTW I would encourage everyone to read  @MikeTO's Signature block and click the links.   There is an update for 2.6
 

PhotoLine is a good non-sub replacement for barcodes. It has extensive barcode support, and can export as svgs. You can then import into Affinity suite if that works? 
 

As you say: "there is a few distro agnostic package manage"   and "flatpak is usually the most commonly used"  This is the problem. For the very many distros there are several, used by most....  So what you are saying is there are multiple packages manages used by some of the very many distros.  The point is, although you are saying Linux has grown to 4%  there is no one package manager that is going to have anywhere near that 4%. It is this fragmentation that causes more work. That is more money.  The costs for doing a Linux version far outweigh any possible income.     IF you can get a single distro with over 20% of the market   and a guaranteed road map for the next 5 years, then you will have an argument for a Linux version of Affinity.  This is commercial reality. 

Its not only the small market share, its actually also the fact that Linux have only software, unless anyone is using Red Hat which is an Enterprise version of Linux, which has be for free under the GNU licence. And that as we know, ladies and gents, is the reason why Affinity products will never be on any Linux distro. Wine just makes any software way too slow to use to be honest

The problem is that you show Linux as a single thing. It actually looks like the diagram below, and that is only a partial one. 

 



 
Before someone asks about Windows, here it is. Note that all the Linux above also have multiple versions in each line. SO effectively Windows is only the same as two of the Linux Lines above. Ie Desktop and Server.  I assume we understand Windows CE or embedded isn't going to be an affinity target.   To be fair the Mac OS line in the UNIX family tree will also look a bit like the Windows one below though less so.  Whilst Apple has changed CPU they only tend to support one at a time and unlike Windows backwards compatibility, Apple only support a very limited number of older versions of the same OS thread. .  

 

There’s already no official release! What are you waiting for?

There is no Windows religion. It is just a work horse that is there, and the vast majority of  desktop business and home users use it. (over 80%?)  It is a tool that is comparable with "everyone else".   For most they don't care.    There are faults with it, as there are with everything like this.   But it just works on almost any hardware you throw at it and "everyone" does drivers and apps for it.  IT is what it is.
Macs do have more of a Fan-boy element became of the style and Apple cultivating it. Besides, people need to justify spending a lot more on a mac than a comparable PC.  MACs were more reliable because Apple controls the whole infrastructure. That said,  the shine has come off Apple of late due to changes in the way it works.  Also this wasn't helped by Adobe having a change of business model at a similar time. So many were reassessing their position.

Linux on the other hand has a very small part of the desktop market, usually only in certain sectors and its users shout many , many times louder than 90% of the Windows users. (most of whom couldn't give a monkey's)  The Linux users start shouting their user base has doubled...  From infinitesimal to insignificant and wonder why companies are not rushing to support linuxes

Linus Torvld has explained many times why Linux is not going to work as a mainstream desktop.... there are penalty of videos of him explaining it at conferences over the last decade. The other more significant reason: that he has talked about and got savaged by Linux people, is how the kernel is patched.  This coupled with how distributions are done make it a non-starter for most apps.

I have worked in computing for over 35 years, mainly on critical systems, and seen the problem people have with Linux. I Work with a company that supplies dev tools.  If you are working with Linux as a target the at a 10% surcharge as a line item because Linux is such a mess to support.  That is the commercial reality.   This is why the Linux is a region. Its devotees don't seem to understand economics or business. 

There is a business case for Linux but it is not as a desktop OS.

 

I honestly can't see that happening and Linux's market share must very significantly improve first before any company will consider porting over their software products to Linux. Until then, it's either a VM or Wine or switching over to the Linux cousin that is macOS. 
 

While each individual V2 installer is larger (for various reasons) than the each individual V1 installer, the individual installed V2 applications can be much smaller than the individual installed V1 applications because the V2 applications share a lot more of their ‘internals’ as a common installation.
Or, to put that another way, three installed V2 applications should take up less installed disk space than three V1 applications, when they have a similar amount of user-generated/installed content (brushes, assets, etc.).
This also mean that updating the V2 applications is quicker than updating the V1 applications as the ‘common stuff’ installed by the first update to a particular version of one application can be ‘passed over’ when updating the other applications to the same version.

With respect, I have been a 100% Linux user for years but even I recognise that huge barrier to more software being adapted for Linux is its low market share, 4%, compared with macOS's 14% market share. That makes it economically viable to produce software for macOS but not yet for Linux.
If you wish to do something constructive then be a Linux conversion evangelist and show people how good Linux is to help improve its market share.

What a pointless remark, and communicated in a way most will not understand.
 

On a factual point, you are wrong.  Having spent 30 years in critical systems, whilst it runs web servers Linux is not used in critical systems, in fact 178C and 61508 prohibit it.
Second factually, and most non-technical people make this mistake, Linux is NOT a UNIX.  Linux and UNIX are both POSIX API OS there are dozens of POSIX API OS and RTOS out there that are architecturally very different.,   What you are suggesting is that a Bentley Continental and a model T-Ford are the same bcause they both have 4 wheels and are painted black.
BTX I do know a couple of critical systems using Linux, but that is because they have done very heavy static and dynamic testing of the source, and it is a much modified Linux that is not publicly available.