Chills

It comes down to one thing: Money. Do the sales outweigh the development cost? If not, it's a no go in any business. 
Linux is fine, and I have it on a VM, but we all know that half the people on linux are there because they don't like to pay, which makes it even harder to justify, even if you had enough people who wanted the program. Designers, for the most part, are not building computers and putting Linux on.

As you say: Affinity have no plans to do a Linux version.
I am sorry if reality (both the engineering and the commercial sides) upsets people.
I will leave you to it. 
 

I can't produce sources right now, but this is referring to interviews with Serif staff and leadership that were published before the iPad proof of concept versions were shown. The near infinite zoom and tiled rendering feature from their floating point precision rendering system in Designer seems to have come from this project. As far as I remember, the decision to develop an Adobe competitor on top of that engine was made then, and that was the start of Designer for Mac.
But I'm sure someone from the dev team could give you a much more comprehensive answer.
The Windows versions use mainly .NET for the system specific parts whereas the Plus range used C++. What you describe might just be as simple as some component of .NET Framework relying on a different DirectX version than for example the Affinity renderer. Unlike the Plus range, the Affinity apps use a shared core and everything was developed on top of that, most likely from scratch, judging from all the stack traces I have seen after something crashed. Also keep in mind that modern DirectX, Vulkan, Metal etc. wasn't even around or at least not used when the Plus range was in active development.
Again I cannot provide specific links off the top of my head, and I don't know how up to date that information is, but this has been what Adobe has communicated in the past about their overall user base. It might also vary quite a bit from region to region.
As I mentioned in this thread before, Photoshop product manager John Nack has on his blog also stated that the reason for Adobe not to go to Linux was not a lack of a market or user demand, but that it would only shift part of their existing user base to Linux instead of generating new sales and expanding their market, which seems to have been their strategy for quite some time now ("Photoshop Extended" was probably the first overt attempt at this even before subscriptions). Which makes sense – you just have to keep subscribers happy enough to not cancel, but if you want to grow the profits, you need to instead invest your resources into features that attract new customers or sell additional products (more cloud storage, stock photos, …).

You are calling me a "moron" whilst I have over 30 years of professional SW development and run Linux here (having been a user since before KDE).  What I am saying are the engineering and commercial reasons why your fantasies are unlikely to ever be fulfilled, BTW, a position supported by Linus Torvalds.  Also, Affinity have said there are no plans to have a Linux version.

If you want an adult conversation based on engineering and commercial reality, fine. If you just want to expand on fantasies, go ahead, but you will get called on them. People only call for other people to be banned when they have no coherent or substantive argument against them
 

If the mods see this, they may want to consider banning you from this discussion or at least issuing a warning, since it is unacceptable to call a fellow forum member a ‘moron’. Please read the forum guidelines.

OT: so has the Citron 2CV with restored ones going for over £10,000!!!  Which is nuts.
(I changed on a program about them last night, I assume the Trabi's have a similar following)

The only way I know of to run Affinity Photo well under Linux is using Windows in a virtual machine as per Hartmut Doering's useful advice below.
I can't see Serif Europe or other software providers making their products available for Linux until such time as desktop Linux's market share approaches that of macOS.

As someone who has been in the SW industry for over 30 years, I am giving you a dose of reality.
4% is not better than 0% when it costs you far more to develop and more on an ongoing basis than you can ever recover. 
It is a net cost, there is no gain.

Linux is NOT a "community dedicated to making things work and supporting one another"  as Linus has said many times, it is a very fractured and desperate group which is why there are thousands of different Linux Distributions all changing asynchronously usually with no predictable roadmap.   In fact, there have been steps to throw both Tovolds and Stallman out of FSF because the religious didn't like it when they told some home truths about the state of Linux development. Particularly in the Linux Kernel.
I don't hate Linux, I have two Linux machines running here at the moment (along with Windows PC's and Macs)  but having a degree (BSc) in computer operating systems I understand the internals of OS and RTOS.   None of them are perfect, but I don't have rose-tinted (or religious in the case of Linux) glasses when I look at them,

So like it or not reality is reality and the numbers don't add up for a Linux version of Affinity.
It is that simple no matter how loud you shout.

.

This is 100% wrong. Over the last 30+ years, Linux has oscillated between 001 and 5% of the desktop market.
For 30 years it has been the "next big thing"  Yet 95%+  of the desktop market has ignored it.
Affinity have stated (several times)  there is no Linux Version anywhere on the road map.
There is no commercial justification for a Linux version.

That is categorically 100% NOT true. 
I went from Adobe to Affinity.
There is NO WAY I would use Linux as a desktop system.

That is categorically 100% NOT true. 
I went from Adobe to Affinity.
There is NO WAY I would use Linux as a desktop system.

i just plotted the Linux values from this website from 2010 until now:

@Chills ↓ look at the Last 90 days on there
also yes the userbase has been oscillating but it is still possible to see a fairly big upward trend in the last few years
 
pookiebear i think you meant macOS because if you didn't: can you tell me what's android's kernel?

Creating a version for Linux is akin to creating one for Android. No one is willing to pay the price for anything useful. 10 bucks for an Android app won't pay to keep the electricity on anywhere in the world. Neither will a few Linux users.
There's a thread here somewhere about Linux (still not) running on Bottles (or anything else Linux, for that matter.)

Serif is not in a war with Adobe. They just use another licensing model. There are zero politics in it...

Statistics based on very small groups, represented by developers or VFX artists, are not very relevant, if thinking to the general target of the Affinity Suite. A slightly more significative statistic, that of desktop OSs used to browse the web, say that Linux is a little more than 1% of the total (compared to the 16% of the Mac). A group of users browsing the web is likely more easy to overlap to a group of users making illustration at some degree.
Paolo
 

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.