Chills

There is no update Serif have no plans to port to Linux.

I am writing to request an update on the potential release of a Linux port of the Affinity Suite. I understand that in the past, the small user base for Linux compared to macOS and Windows was a concern. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the number of Linux users has significantly increased since the forum posts discussing this issue in 2016-2018. This survey conducted by Stack Overflow, demonstrates the increased adoption of Linux by professionals developers. A similar survey show the same increase in VFX studios, and other artistic industries for stability and deployment reasons. Both shows that Linux exceed macOS's user base by a significant amount.
I also wanted to mention the availability of Flatpak / Flathub as a solution to the issue of portability and stability across different Linux distributions. In addition, I wanted to address the concern of profitability in the development of a Linux release. While it is not a perfect solution, I have seen that the Affinity Suite primarily uses OpenGL, who have been implemented well on Linux and .NET 4.8 achieve acceptable stability through the use of wine.
As a professional photo editor, vector graphics, and page layout software, the Affinity Suite would be a valuable addition to the Linux ecosystem, filling a gap in the market for high-quality professional software on this platform. I hope that you will consider these points in your current position on a Linux release.
I respectfully request that Could you provide us with your current stance on a Linux release, taking into account the points mentioned above.

I think that is where a lot of people disagree. If Adobe would provide a buyout option that would lock the software at a specific version to keep running perpetually, then they might have a good price point. But, $240 for only one year of functionality isn't a good price in my opinion. And that is just for Photoshop, if you aren't wanting Illustrator and Indesign.

It's hardly surprising if, after 13 pages of going round and round in circles, nobody can remember what the original point of this post was!  DAM!  I certainly can't!

All those attempts at abbreviating makes me wonder if Serif needs to rename their products with less generic names. Needing to spell out the entire name of Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, or Affinity Publisher every time does feel tedious.
Microsoft already has their own Publisher and then Photo and especially Designer seem particularly nonspecific. The older Serif product names before Affinity would probably work like PagePlus, PhotoPlus, DrawPlus, etc. or maybe since the Affinity products are a professional rebrand they could be called PagePro, PhotoPro, and DrawPro.
And then to get back on topic we could have ManagePro or AssetPro for the LightRoom competitor.

That explains a lot... You have no idea about what we are discussing. No wonder you keep missing the point.
 

That explains a lot... You have no idea about what we are discussing. No wonder you keep missing the point.
 

And there you prove my point.   You said a DAM and integrating it in to AP (Photo). You don't understand, and that detail is huge.

The discussion for a DAM is a LOT more than an image catalogue.  I don't often use APhoto, but I live in AP (Publisher) and need to use a lot of digital assets, including images   Likewise ADesign people have different criteria and assets they want to catalogue. 

The database system needs to be a LOT more than just images, I assume it will have IPTC hierarchical keyword system?  Obviously, it needs to understand the current Spectrum cataloguing system.    There is a lot more to it than just extended EXIF especially if the files are not images.
It is easy to come up with a small image catalogue system but a lot more difficult to do a decent DAM. As I said before the devil is in the detail and details take time and expense. I have seen more than one project thrown together in the manner you are suggesting, only to have it scraped and started again from the ground up for V2 because  V1 had so many poor design choices and restrictions after it got  out into the field.
     

It seems perfectly germane to a discussion where people talk about creating a new app (especially one that has to integrate with existing software on three different OS) as though it was a couple of hour's work!
On the other hand, if all you want is a simple image viewer, why are people so keen on Affinity creating their own, when there are already other ones available (such as XnView MP)? 

No, It isn't a fairly trivial task. 

It might seem simple to knock up a simple spec, but the devil is in the detail.  And that gets time-consuming and expensive.

Then maybe that afternoon they could create a new PDF editing app, maybe a video editor as well, if they do a couple of hours overtime!

No, It isn't a fairly trivial task. 

It might seem simple to knock up a simple spec, but the devil is in the detail.  And that gets time-consuming and expensive.

Paper, scissors and a bit of glue – how long could have it taken???
 

I have both Adobe Photoshop and Affinity Photo, in fact I started on PS decades ago. I find for what I do Affinity Photo is fine. 
I also prefer Publisher to InDesign.  
There is nothing embarrassing about the Affinity tools.

And that is exactly what is needed in A. Publisher.  
 
When I select fonts for a specific project, I mark them as Favourites, and they appear in the Favourite Subset.
Though, it would help if you could have multiple groups of Favourites.(with the ability to have the same font in more than one group.)
Also you can have Character styles which includes the font.  That is another way of sub setting them.

No.

People aren't afraid to use AI, they have ethical qualms and are smart enough to see the way AI will be used to replace their jobs -- if we let it happen

What a bizarre comparison. Y2K and AI. They are not even remotely related. Again not sure why you can't seem to grasp the idea that if there was generative AI in Affinity you would not have to use it. You don't have to use it in Photoshop, no gun to your head. You Simply go about as normal without it. Your way is so backwards it is not even funny. Like let's make a car and keep the radio separate so those who don't want the distraction of music or news while they drive don't have it. Those who want it can hook up the radio to a trailer and connect to the car and play through loud speakers so you can hear it while driving. The whole premise, like pretty much all of your threads and posts are nonsensical. You want a company to promise to never use AI in their software but then want them to make a stand alone AI that only uses their artists as references. So you want limited AI that is a pain to use because actual pro uses are not using AI to create pictures from scratch, they are using it primarily to fix and adjust images easily. So now with your stand alone AI app you just have a really limited picture creator. If I wanted to just make a picture with AI why would I use Affinity? There are countless others out there without restrictions and completely open to give much better results. 

I've never heard anyone say that. Sounds like a strawman

The biggest concern that many have is that there are legal issues with some usages of generative AI, such that some companies and clients forbid using it in the artwork being provided to them.
Consider that the "generative AI" is fed a bunch of existing images (stuff not created by AI) and it "learns" from those images and basically copies parts of them to produce the "new" work - meaning the new work is technically a composition of small parts of other works.
Based on that, if the original works were copyrighted, then you are now potentially in violation of copyright laws if permission was not obtained to use them.  If the copied parts of the images are trademarks (someone asked for a mouse and got Micky Mouse, for example), then you may be using someone's trademark without their consent.  If someone takes the work and tries to pass it off as the creation of the AI (or their own work), then you are largely ignoring that it is a derivative of the work of possibly many others, and denying them credit for what they did.
In some cases permission was not obtained to make use of the images that were fed into the AIs and thus copyright is a very real concern for many.  Even if permission was obtained from those who took the pictures, if any trademarks are involved, or if the images were photos which included people and model releases were not obtained which cover the arbitrary use of generative AI, you could wind up with a different set of legal issues.
Consequently there are many who ban its use, and people who work for clients are looking for options that help them to convince the clients that they are not using it, as some clients will not allow it due to those legal concerns.

I trust the fam will spank you for taking time away from the vaycay to look at your phone!

I'm on holiday in the Mediterranean so the only thing I can throw is some shade and shapes in the club 
 

I did just that and the problem has already been solved... (and the solution has nothing to do with Affinity!)  see 
 
 

Hi @Chills,
This has come up previously, we don't create embedded thumbnails for PDF documents, just native affinity files. We rely on the OS having built in support to preview that file type. This would be a feature request.
On a personal note I tend to use Acrobat as my default file associations for opening PDFs for proofing etc. and right click > open with when I want to open the PDF in affinity. You can enable PDF previews in their settings.

That would be a different issue, so you should create your own topic in the Bugs forum to get it addressed, I think.