SrPx

It plays "me too" at an amazing price (which for me, is "me better" even if wouldn't be exactly reaching a "me too" , hehe). But yeah, I enjoyed reading that suggestion. I use booleans (surely more than I should) both in 2D and 3D...they are often such a time saver... Pathfinder (with that much versatility) has always been so great....

It's in the works. I have not said such thing. Nice choice of adjectives, BTW.

About trends.... Well, I've worked for long in video game industry. Which, btw, moves now more money than film industry, or that's what I'm hearing and reading lately, even in the news... There are exceptions, but the huge large majority of these companies do use Windows based software. A lot use Apple platforms too. These packages are very often provided for both Apple and Windows. More rarely to Linux (brilliant exception of Maya, Houdini, but there are a ton of tools very essential in game development not present for linux) I was working for many years as a front end guy (coding, image works, from concept to finalizing all, the whole pack ) at a company, in a team where mainly I cared of 90% of the whole front end stuff, several portals and other stuff. I was Windows-only for preference (because Windows is GOOD, not evil, and very fast and compatible with almost anything on earth ) and found this kind of strong will of not even touch the system unless using a resources hungry and not hardware/drivers friendly VM (we used those in a very advanced way, I quite know my way with those as a result) . I could -and did- have multiboot in my machines, and use equally Windows and Linux (i could install and use anything both in console or desktop (no tech support needed, I installed and fixed my OSes), been using Linux seems Red Hat first versions, and a few of the first Slackwares . Ubuntu is very nice , but Windows is simply a more practical solution in this world. ) So, the trend argument, looking at the numbers (Windows users will use a tool coming from Linux without hesitation, if is good, heck I use everyday Blender, Krita, Inkscape and Gimp in my Windows), would be not very convenient for focusing on linux. I'd use better the security reasons, when in areas where security is more of a concern. But an artist as I was in a company, where I did knew how to handle well a Windows system (not the average joe) and very heavy firewalls and other measures were between me and anything important, not so much of an issue (full security is almost impossible, though). IMO, it is even Affinity in the Windows and Mac world, and they still have a very hard fight against the established giant (decades of polishing for many professional areas, large armies of developers, market already dominated and extremely hard to beat, workflows very tied to the internal cores of the companies, the freelancers being requested constantly to import (and provide later) a very natively linked PSD file, drivers, plugins, etc, etc, etc. etc).... Add there the extra obstacle of the OS (out of ~20 graphic buddies I can think of right now, worked with me at companies, almost all would have strong issues to handle the basics in ANY Linux system), platform, and then we're done.... Also, that Linux counts now with very beautiful desktops (it does, and are really a pleasure to handle: I am a Linux user without ANY problem in using it for my everyday tasks and also using the terminal ) is very far from all what is needed to be competitive with a VARIED graphic production environment (at companies, many of us are required not just to deal with all front end stuff. In many cases is also always the print stuff, animation, etc). Of course, -and I believe this is one of the main reasons for this hyperactive thread- with Affinity, being affordable, non-subscription based (thankfully!! ) , and already covering largely the professional needs, would help a ton in filling the gap for Linux. And yeah. I DO believe that for having a professional solution IN your Linux, a lot of Linux users would pay the 50 or 100 bucks with no hesitation at all, even if goes against the philosophy of some (but low cost software is an old habit in Linux, they've learnt already that SOME money (just not extortion or crazy prices) has to be spent to get the pro workflows. Even in just manuals, for tech needs, speeding up, or just help the cause, they're used to these quantities and more. Been there, done that. ) The issue keeps being the same. Not enough market to consider that the SAME effort in developers hours would be bringing the same money , would be as cost effective as developing for Windows (90% of installed machines.... :s ) or Apple (way smaller, but a large percentage of graphic artists there, and top class, huge companies based full workflow in Mac since decades... ). IE, meaning that putting that chunk of developers hours, blood, sweat and tears into developing and perfecting AP and AD for Mac and Windows will certainly bring more income, consolidate more the company, as once those 2 apps are flawless in Win and Mac, they get the royal strong consideration, as a very important enemy ( I would suspect then aggressive counter measures from the Giant if situation gets there. ). At that point, the company, and this is a personal opinion by someone fully unrelated to Serif (sadly) , would have way more room, money, capability and most of all, built "name" [ there is no better marketing known in this universe and parallel ones than artists saying "hey these have no bugs anymore, and allow me to do all the work, no subscription". Even if prices later on would go up (have no idea). As the subscription (and previously monopolistic huge price) is the main prob. ] and installed base, to conquer the Linux world. Till then is divide a energy that they need fully for an already gigantic task for a small team.

Yes, it could be very useful. Really, a lot. But a lot of us do constantly create new art , so, an stabilizer is a must. And that said by someone who already is able to ink fully a piece using no smoothing neither stabilization _at all_ , but it consumes a lot of time as, sadly, no wacom, or other tablet hardware(not really cintiqs, although is clearly an improve) that I have been lucky to access has developed the level of control, accuracy and non-jittery that the hands of someone drawing many decades has (using tablets since 1991, and still can ink any sketch in a breeze, where inking it by computer is way slower). While the new generation of the latest Wacom models are a light in the darkness, I am afraid is gonna be a while till the wacom pen behaves like a regular brush or tradicional pen /pencil /even toothpick + indian ink (I had to use that during a whole year to pass one of the main subjects in my career, and that having to draw a full human figure of a real model with no more allowed than 3 minutes. Even those allow more control.) I have my wacom intuos4 (XL) configured to crazy depth and use it professionally since many years, all freaking day hours. I do know stabilization does save a lot of time, that's the thing. I don't paint for a hobby... is my main activity. So speed is beyond being just key, is the freaking main thing.. :) Stabilization helps there were the hardware magnetic system (rate, tablet grid resolution, etc, etc) of even the best hardware (tablets-pens) can't do more. As I said before, yes, the smoothing of an already done drawing is very important. But for art creation, IMO, the other (which they are adding) is even more. I agree with someone saying before that the best systems are those (even if I am mixing here stabilization with other concepts, is all to get the best experience, result, speed) allowing level of strength in the stabilization...how much it is simplifying the stroke, and several other settings (indeed, sth not yet in the best packages adding stabilization, is a key shortcut to change between several settings, or just ON/OFF). Inskcape is, IMO, only its inking tool, is not implemented for the other tools, a great point to get to know some extremely clever and efficient (it just works as an illustrator/comic artist needs) approaches to the issues. The settings well configured simply work incredibly well, not only because I somehow expected less, but due to the almost absolute control once configuring the "mass" and other settings to your best performance. A pity that there are many reasons why professionally I wouldn't use it (inkscape) for large projects, same reason I'd definitely do so (I mean, that is usable for me in serious projects) with AD (and why I purchased it, besides because I firmly believe in Affinity(whole line) as the alternative). Illustrator does also some extremely convenient things if is seen combined the things you can set double clicking the brush toolbar icon, and when double clicking the whatever the brush of choice in the list of brushes. But several very interesting settings in Inkscape inking tool are not present in Illustrator latest, sth to consider, too. Open source might not be yet good to fill every professional need/niche (Blender fully does it for me, tho), but counts on some features/approaches surprisingly well done.

IMO, that's not true/fair in the case of the cross platform applications Blender and Krita. I use both professionally. :) The inking tool in Inkscape is really well made. if only there was a way to set the side wacom's button pen not to trigger the Inskcape context menu... But there is not, this is a bit crazy for drawing if you are used to set ctrlz or ctrl alt z for undo in the side button of the wacom pen.

Software's gotta update :). I mean, if not would be a disaster... :) . There are some very old standing issues for really accurate and comfortable painting. The rewrite, from what I read, has the full intention of addressing several of those issues (which many of us have been moa...er.. speaking about ;) ). I mean, is the solution, surely. but any large revamp needs quite cooking, I guess. I'm all for hard pre-alpha versions if it leads to help improving the thing... (or set a group of hardcore users about wacom issues, so the rest would use a beta without those risky and less stable changes.... ;) )

I very much look forward for that final rewrite once 1.6 becomes a final release. IMO, those changes listed above do seem to be very much needed. That together with stabilization could make a joy to use AP for drawing and painting. :)

I wanted to post just a word of encouragement (very sincerely), and a way to say thanks to all the huge effort put in Photo beta 1.6x :) ( A beta has got to have beta problems. Is great that everyone helps in spotting stuff :) )

hehehe, with a passion !! (edit : I think that's not correct English, I was translating directly from Spanish....I meant I like this feature a lot ! )

Thank you !! These sound specially great to me : Stroke stabiliser for all pencil and brush tools, Improved performance with large documents, Many PDF export improvements including vector export of multi-stop gradients, Numerous bug fixes and stability improvements. Great beta... :)

Am too handsome to wear sunglasses.... :D

Lol, much nicer. Still, I'd get dizzy with those black things in the middle.... And anyway, never liked the sun glasses. Only good for cases where they are strictly needed, that's my take at it, however... Whenever is healthy to not use them (45º Celsius at noon being one clear case of the opposite) , I prefer no filters... When you can get damage if not, absolutely yes. I was given once some nice Ray-ban, they were pretty cool, but lost 'em. :D

a pity blue is not my color... (not only for the blue light harm (myth?)) ...and that dark square in the middle sure as heck makes it uncomfortable to look at whatever... And if anything, I'd be after a "happy glasses" ....reality puts you the angry ones too easily, and at no cost... What could be a hit would be a "money finding glasses" :D

Where can I buy these ? ;)

I worked 7 years (till not long ago) as the dude for all in a software company that was very web portals focused. I maintained -and created- many portals at a time. Including basic concept creation sketch till doing the PSD with sectors, and even more often, without them, once I got really used to "visualize" things in a way...Then always made my code by hand, as no other auto-thing makes really healthy code. Or even the very few that does it, is never customizable enough for your team's code base and/or your existing style sheets, html snippets from the Ruby on Rails (or PHP, etc), etc... meaning with this, being AP so extremely similar to PS, and being the very essential workflows doable with probably every average 2D package on earth, this would not be by far a large worry... I'd care way more to keep the tools solid, bugs free (please, the brushes ;D ), having the essentials working. But I believe I know what you mean : it can be faster a more automated, partial code generator from the design, if you don't have those usual team-work restrictions. As a matter of fact, PS's for that had a LOT left to be desired, not worth it to use it so (the direct to code export).. yet though, most web developing companies I worked at, had these code-only restriction/need . The code did tend to need to be hard coded, for a bazillion reasons, and clean, and standard to all team, cross platform, not software editor dependent. Ie, fireworks. In companies were there are Linux and Windows/Mac people, this would be crazy at certain levels/workflows types. And this happens often. I'd design my full template as a PSD, then crop by guides or sectors (for example). I even had my (cr4ppy) python scripts in place for certain repeating operations (plus Actions). No need anything else... We got once one guy who couldn't do anything without his loved wysiwyg tool, and the dude lasted veery little in the company, replaced fast by a CSS/javascript expert , much more useful for the team and me (i don't code JS, just integrate jQueries.. :S ), even while the other one would have meant finally not being overloaded with absolutely all the graphic stuff for the company.

The newest Cintiq QHD if you are rich (I mean, almost every artist could afford one of this, if not using the money to pay the rent, etc ;D )... Just the intuos Pro if you are serious about drawing, just not crazily rich (but very importantly like in all this post: The latest generation: there are very serious improvements in this whole new gamma. Between a Pro 3 (indeed, some people preferred the glass surface),4 or 5 IMO, or the previous Pro to the current, not so much difference. But this latest gen really is worth it. Would be long to explain why... ) . Maybe the Paper Edition if you like inking in Paper. It could be handy for that. I have not tested that feature. Is the same than a regular Pro, just with the added feature, and extra pen. A bit more expensive. A "Large" (L) model if you, like me, take illustration very seriously and draw a lot all day. A Medium if your style requires less line art and more painting and you hate big tablets for some reason. Don't pick small sizes unless your only task is using it for photo retouching, exclusively, or pixel art. If you are really on a stretch of money, the Intuos (non Pro) "ART" Medium is a very good purchase, tho several features are stripped out, of course. I could draw with one of those, for example. For what you say in your post, maybe an Intuos Pro (Paper or not) Large or Medium. (I have an XL and personally would never go back to a Medium. A Large, yep, maybe is the sweet spot. But is the only size I have not used extensively, to be honest. I just know Medium is almost good enough for me. XL is great, I work with it since many years, but maybe a bit too big if you do more than illustrating ) Anyway, what you mention is often more a need of purchasing extra type of wacom pens that make more use of tilting functions... I never did so as for me is enough what I can get with the default one.

I agree in that: Freehand was fabulous. I too disliked that was left out (stuff happens when companies buy other companies (goodbye XSI, we miss you... :,,,S )...). Indeed, I like way more the Xara's approach to vectors illustrations than AI's (yet tho, I totally have the hang of AI, had to, when working at companies). Would have been nicer to keep FH for pure design, and do sth more in the line of Xara's (more intuitive and direct for drawing with vectors, more "artist friendly") for vectorial illustration. But I am starting to stop idealizing great apps from the past... With Deluxe Paint, I did that for a while.. Today there are some apps doing most of the stuff DP did, but not all (heck I did all the art on my own of 5 pixel art based games at a company in one year, using just PS, twelve years ago...)... And still, there's so many other convenient advantages in today's workflows and apps. (of course, the DP example only serves to speak about a very specific way of doing pixel art). I have used AI auto trace system, and yet I prefer Inkscape's implementation of PoTrace. With some deep tricks. Which weren't easy to discover), it gives me better results than AI's one ever did (or even several specialized vectorizers-only apps which I used in the past. A problem is that Inkscape in Windows is a bit too crash-loving . Yesterday I had a huge crash with it. Luckily, it DOES make a full copy of the file (some mega pro top dog tool does not do that so properly) with the date and minute you had the crash, so, no work was lost), dunno how is that in Linux/Mac. But indeed, that's mostly a disadvantage when doing a full project -like this one very recent that I did or which am yet indeed working on- but not an issue when just importing whatever, auto tracing and exporting the traced pdf or svg (yep, Inskcape can very well be used as a helper tool, well, any app can be used this way)...You rarely have a crash in Inkscape's auto tracing, unless no clever settings are used. With simple silhouettes doesn't worth it any auto tracer, no matter the brand, though... And... question might be... Why was (still am) I using Inkscape instead of A. Designer, which i quite enjoy using? Well, Inkscape has got a really good ink brush, allowing inking in vectors very well, 100% accurate. Sadly, two big issues : No matter what you config, the RMB dialog pops every time you hit the pen's side button for undo. Seems there's no solution to this. It's quite uncomfortable and damages a lot the workflow .Also, for deleting lines, you can only select the stroke/line, or do a ctrl+a everytime you need to erase. This slows one down crazily. Still worth it for the accuracy and settings of the brush system, but I'll probably (if 1.6 works as I wish, then not just "probably") get ride of the whole Inkscape app (which is very useful, in any case, btw) and move that also to AD once 1.6 comes out. In non illustration related things (but only for the brush issues, for other reasons, AD is ABSOLUTELY lovely, already) AD serves me very, very nicely. It is a very solid app, IMO. Re: using several apps even of the same kind of activity: I keep using combos of apps for literally everything, that is not necessarily bad...can be very functional. (ie, I am super fast modeling with Wings3D, detailing with Sculptris, while triggering Blender for anything like uvmapping, scene/materials building, 3D painting, rendering and animating. I have a freaking old version of XSI Foundation, but is taking dust, Blender and the others have all I need...) . That said, is faster and more fun to be able to do it all in same app, I recon that. PS and AI allows this, and is great for professional production.

meaning sth in the line of this ugly-fast example (maybe some css class to overlap that there -keeping it all responsive and etc-), or just an html text link below ("More details") the button and that'd be it, however way. Again, just a suggestion :)

One advice, but I might be wrong. Would it be a good idea to add (maybe out of the "get this" button) a " + info " link, button (big enough to be immediately seen, yet bit smaller than button's font), or etc ? Perhaps both linking to the same page, that's fine. Is an easy change (html+css grunt here :D). But convenient, sell-wise. I tell you why. I wasn't clicking on them, as I always want the info first, then decide if purchase of not, in a SAAS, native software, etc. The visitors impression is you get direct to a purchase form once clicking on it ! instead of what it is actually (kudos for that) , a page with full info and a purchase button at the end, which is the clever thing. Dunno what others might think of this, but having worked as the guy behind these pages for years in software companies, that's sth I quite see clearly here... Call to action is nice, but these days, one needs to be super adapted to client's comfort and freedom of choice...

The man is super active, you'd get an amazing tester :) BTW: congrats on your stuff. You have very high level, high quality. And I like your style. :) Not buying them as I never use stuff from other people (surely a bad habit) , but if I were into that, this would be an absolute must. :) Edit: Actually... the sci fi brushes pack and the textures pack would be rather useful, also to me.... :)

Auto-trace is not, by any means, a criteria to determine if a design package is mature or not. Same as a serious photo retouch application is not more professional for having red eyes flash effect elimination, or some other toys.... (in the sense that I can -if I need to handle a bad photo source- do that manually more carefully) I've worked in a bunch of companies as the main graphic designer, and as a part of a department, and yet to see a situation, workflow, project, even among very specific ones, where auto trace was strictly required. In the very occasional case we'd need that, we or I would just trigger PoTrace command line or use Inkscape, and then import in wherever, or use the Illustrator feature in companies where they used AI (I remember one very huge one -actually, two- were they did not want AI at all, it was all Fireworks -heavily web oriented companies- ). If anything, auto trace needs so much post processing work that most of the times -if using the output for something serious and in vectors- it wouldn't worth it, and a seasoned designer would trace it at speed of light in comparison. Is not only the cleaning (layers of tints, isolated stuff, bad wires, slower file handling, memory size of the editing file, etc, etc, etc) , is also the optimizing (accuracy requires many nodes, which you need to simplify later), which isn't either good to be trusted to an automatic process...Tons of time, instead of doing a perfect, clean, hand traced work. Calling AD not being "mature" for not having that toy is such a stretch...with all respects, I know you say it with the best intention and constructively, to help in making it a better software.

Actually, this happens too in PS. (layer got deselected by clicking somewhere in the layers panel, or by several other ways)

Unless we'd want to insult their intelligence ;) , I am more than sure that they (who already have demonstrated to be quite smart people) have considered that quite deeply before taking a decision. Again, the more convincing argument would be mere numbers, statistics. Why and how X number of potential users (and how and from where that number is brought up) could compensate an inversion of X money. Or even just the first part, as they can pretty much figure out the latter (lol, and the former...). The thing is, if one is not here only for the love of Linux, but ALSO wants Affinity to grow, survive, and THEN, maybe then, be able to provide linux versions (and extra apps in the suite, and etc, etc, but one brick at a time ! ), a big picture perspective here could be concluding that maybe it's the best interest of everyone here that they consolidate what they can only be working at a time, which is already too much (too much in their plate already), and that for now it seems to be consolidating AP and AD in two platforms. If they don't do so, the big global impact in the fight against the top dogs could be lost, and then forget about everything... (and so, also the linux version). But this is my very personal opinion/take on the matter, very arguable, of course, I just see it so.

Well, there's Maya and Houdini. And those are super strong in Linux thanks to film industry. And can't easily think of anything of higher specs and needs than what is done in the film industry. (yet though, video games industry moves now more money, and with some brilliant exceptions, is clearly dominated by Windows and Mac.) But IMO, there's a few very important reasons (I was for years very much hoping it'd change) why they don't have a stronger set of graphic editing applications : - 1) A large percentage of developers (and users) are coding/server/system focused, not graphic artists, there is not many personally interested in graphic applications, using them, and even less creating them. Or, the little they need (make their app icon, etc) is really well covered by Gimp and Inskcape. Linux moves a lot this way: people make an app that they need, or for the pro world they know, etc. Is only till very recent that people from Blender movie projects (actual concept artists) and other areas have been heard a bit more, and so you could see the relatively recent appearance of MyPaint, and this new strong thing called Krita. - 2) It seems that many really believe it's fine and covered with Inkscape, Gimp and Blender (it partially is, indeed). And in a good percentage of tasks (and leaving out people more picky than me with non standard UIs) they have a point. Just not there to compete with professional software for it in Mac and Windows in the most deep complexities, at least (IMO, Blender has reached that happy point, and Krita is very near once solves some performance issues and adds some editing and type related stuff power) . That is : Fine for hobbyists and indy authors who are brave to deal with different UIs (indeed, even very different among them, so you need to be an "UI all terrains" kind of artist (I am, and many of them are)) . But is not that fine to compete for the level of things required in several professional areas. Like print, games, etc. In good hands, I mean, some many years of expertise people, yep, they can, somehow, but even them, at a slower pace that can someone with super specialized top tools in Win/Mac and equally talented. And this is because they are great experts, but human beings: If a feature is slow and incomplete, you can only find clever workarounds: That's slower, though. Quite fine for personal projects, though, where time, bosses, milestones, etc, are not every minute pressing. - 3) Other reason of these apps, (not all! but in a big percentage) don't get there to fight with the top dogs in Win /Mac is this constantly found way of thinking that implementing ways and adding certain features is "copying Windows" or copying Mac. Is not. Is adding what a professional needs, today. Adding CMYK solid handling has been quite a lost fight in a good number of editing apps both in the vectors and raster world (you could browse forums archives in several of the apps, to see how many times this has been requested). - 4) Related to (3), certain barrier hard to go through -it seems- is that whenever the professional world uses/requires some sort of closed, commercial library or thing, ie, Pantone's libraries, they have automatically an issue there. I hope that's already sorted out somehow, but there was an issue with that, and color profiles, and certain matters. The graphics world is full of this sort of things, and actually illustrators and artists are not too friendly of the concept of giving away your rights, giving for free the original source files (even when paid, if not added an extra pay) , like a layered full editable file, etc. I mean, this whole philosophy tends to crash there. - 5) The graphics making software world evolves at the speed of light, and this is possible because there's a very strong market which pays for it. If you have only volunteers and hobbyists to compete with that in their free time (as it has worked fine in browsers, server stuff, programming IDEs, etc) AND the mass of the people in the community, or not even a big enough portion of it, is not interested in graphic software, well, then you can't ever compete. The commercial tools in graphics in Win or Mac get to be always several steps over them. And mostly, seems to listen more closely to professionals (maybe also as pros do give their feedback to their everyday tool and company which makes it.). Somehow, I have experienced that Blender is the one getting the best pace here, to a point is getting really close...But then, you think of a combo of Zbrush, Substance Painter, Maya and Max in their latest iterations, and it'd be doubtful to state equally talented persons would work equally fast and with ability to do every professional world need just the same with Blender+ Gimp, etc. I've known and seen absolute aces with Blender and Gimp, and even them, competing with the top guys with the other pack...Hmmm, I'll leave it there, as, strange as it sounds, I would really prefer open source cross platform apps would be there already. That said, in certain fields, like video editing mid/small sized studios, or game developers of non AAA games, small companies making work in video and 3D editing for local TVs, etc, etc... , in those, Blender is already there, getting a nice portion of the market. Those studios also tend to use Gimp and similar software (but I have seen a collection of them using blender in Linux native and launch Wine to use a single (old) user license of PS !. One of the proofs that Blender is just ahead of the bunch). They are just not widely known, but they are there. - 6) Due to bad experiences with the UIs, and/or, some "little bit" of aggressive behavior between both communities (which I've seen goes in both directions) and/or statements very rigid in those communities (Windows is cr4p, or Linux is cr4p, summarizing that all) makes artists flow among platforms way less likely than it could be. If a seasoned -or newbie- artist from Win/Mac finds a UI which does not feel as home, by far, and when asks questions finds a bad response in the community, that one wont come back, rarely that flow is gonna happen. Luckily, there are exceptions, and for instance, I notice Blender users tend to be very patient people with newcomers. (it adds to the problem that users from other platforms come to Linux apps with a very closed mindset, often. ) - 7) What tends to happen in every field : Already super strong user base established in Windows and Mac in graphic apps. That would be hard to beat even counting with the same technical advantages in the software ! Who hits first, hits twice, they say...So, not a situation where devs or users in linux apps should put more stones for incoming external platform artists...It's already a non attractive path. (price being zero in many cases, and a bit of adjusting the apps to the current pro needs for the professionals, and more standard UIs for the other users types, would go a long way...) And I have it so sort of "examined" as I am a very long time user of those apps, and really wish the situation was better. I for one believe the apps that exist in Linux for graphics are way , way more usable than what I have read even from a bunch of linux users here ! (might be a new thing, but I am used to the opposite : Linux users saying Gimp is the best in the world and PS is cr4p. I might be getting old or there's really a new wave of Linux users which aren't the ones I have always known, users that don't see Gimp as one of the main flags they have to defend... This is new to me...) There two types of posts : Professionals that really need to work very fast and be able to cover very specific professional areas (you need specific features, not eons-taking workarounds that in some cases wont even allow the thing fully). And to them I'd say: Yeah, if you are wanting to do it all with a graphic app, like you'd do it in Win/Mac world, then I'd agree with you, totally. What I don't get is posts from Linux passionate users that use these apps for hobbies, or, as an additional tool which is not the main focus of their pro activity, so is not critical if they are only in a 85% of their counterparts. If really loving the platform, they should do like a lot of linux users do: Help the app grow, do tutorials, etc. For this type of activity those are really usable, right now, I know from long experience. But IMO, putting the blame or responsibility of this very complex and difficult situation of (part of) the graphic software in Linux to an specific Mac based (and since not that long, also Windows I mean in the Affinity line, only) company, seems crazy to me. I mean, they surely have their (not Adobe sized) funds risk strategy, and they can't go crazy with money/human resources... And my 2c too, but it is not impossible. We have seen what happened with Firefox, Wings3D, Blender, LibreOffice, (my jewels of the crown, even with their certain disadvantages) etc. It seems is possible to make open source software 100% or at least 95% of the needed quality to use those in commercial environments, and supply the lacking 5% with good effort in techniques from the users. Same as I do with mid and low cost software (which of course I also do with free alternatives). Heck, I have modeled EVERYTHING with Wings3D at different companies, same speed or more than my staff colleagues. I do render entire scenes quite realistic with Blender for very varied uses. My office package is LibreOffice (and all of this, in Windows, as those are all cross platform) And well, I use both Firefox and Chrome much more than the other ones. (an ex front-end web designer have a tendency to have every browser installed, tho...)

...And looking at posts praising it, some time ago (not much), I went, curious freak as I am , to test PL (Again. As in its day, quite longer ago, the demo crashed constantly on me. Probably one of the typical Windows 64 bits installers and application binaries occasional issues, so, knowing it "could" have a workaround I could find, still no time to get to discover and fix the problem )...Just to realize it caused jiter when painting with the brush in a typical zoom. That together preferring Affinity's UI a ton more... The UI is not a huge issue (but definitely affects a decision), but the brush problem... For that I prefer to wait to AP and AD 1.6 improvements.