m.vlad

For sure it might be fun for some people, but how about the rest? How about finding 83 new notifications on your email about a thread you're really interested about to later find out that it was nothing but a children's quarrel?

we've been talking about wine support from the start. Your self-righteous arrogance seems to have  blinded you to the actual discussion going on in between your hot takes.

Nor is your obsession with shutting down this discussion. Oh well!

I used to have this cat who had a real spicy attitude. She'd come into a room full of people, flop down, and start rolling around on her back and flirting with everyone, putting all attention on her. But she ALSO liked talking big game and growled and hissed a lot.
If you removed her from the room, she came right back in, demanding attention.
i don't know why that just popped into my head...

...except you're only sharing your opinion, not absolute fact. The *truth*  is that many in this thread have voiced support for Affinity on Linux. The *truth*  is that Linux is growing in popularity, evidenced by the objective *fact* that big companies like Microsoft, NVidia, and AMD invest engineering effort - which isn't cheap - to support Linux.
And much like you don't care about our position, I see no reason to care about yours. I'll continue to add my voice to the many suggesting Linux support, and maybe next time you can be considerate of the sincere participants and not derail the discussion with more self-aggrandizing "shut up, nobody cares" posts. 
It's ironic you have commented on how self-centered Linux users are. It seems you're the only one making this about you and what you want.

So you agree that what you're saying is linux lacks professional apps and that its userbase is insignificant because there's few professional apps on it, therefore adding more apps to its portfolio should, in theory, based on your argument, increase its userbase.
I will remind you that we're here arguing for a port or a version that works through WINE of a design app that would fill in the gap of graphic design work on linux. Sure making a point about how big the linux on desktop is could help the argument, but that can always be refuted with "but it's just 3% anyway", which is what I feel is happening here when you're moving the goalpost. There's tens of vocal people who say they'd switch to linux if affinity or adobe worked well on linux, that's just in this forum. There's probably hundreds of people who would do it but aren't vocal about it. This is definitely a viable market considering Serif just has to work with the people who work on WINE and make themselves available so that Affinity works on linux. This isn't a monumental task, and the benefit would outweight the cost (specifically in the case of making it work with WINE/CodeWeavers, I'm not talking about fully porting the app to linux).

But your entire role in this thread has been to derail it, insisting that there's no legitimate reason to even entertain a discussion about Affinity on Linux. That's dumb. Unless you have special insider information from Affinity on the subject, you're not actually contributing anything to the discussion; you're just posting so people have to pay attention to you.
Yes, and your understanding of that market, I'm guessing, is based on news articles and public data that doesn't actually deep-dive into industry research.
I've done that second part. And I'm telling you your entire premise is flawed.
This alone shows how little you actually know or understand about Linux, and I'm betting you've also never actually written desktop software. You don't actually know what you're talking about on this one.
That wasn't my point though, was it? Why don't you re-read what I wrote and use context clues to understand why I mentioned this.
Is that what I said? You've come to a thread where people are discussing the merits and potential of Affinity on Linux, and your only contribution to this thread can be summed up as "shut up, nobody cares."
Rude.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha you are totally full of it, and this is enough evidence for me.
Linux is a VERY popular operating system for crypto miners, and Nvidia's GPUs have been held captive by the crypto market for several years now. Nvidia also continues to release - and support - a solid Linux driver, and they have contributed to Valve's efforts to make Steam cross-platform.
I know you really want to be the expert here, but you're not.

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.
 
But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.
 
1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.
2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.
3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.
 
How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.
 
Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.
 
It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.
Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

I think it would be productive to bring some arguments before you hit us with your conclusion.
You need sources when you make a strong claim like that. Where is the 1% from?

Responses to this reasoning have already been given, by myself and others.  Speaking from personal experience here, but echoing what's been said by others also, I would have switched to Linux/BSD long ago if Adobe had supported it.  Adobe Premiere was becoming such a mess though, I transitioned to Davinci Resolve, which opened the door to Linux.
 
Perhaps a lot has happened in 20 years, but Linux desktop really lacks very little.  If we put Adobe to the side for a moment, I'm hard pressed to think of an industry level application that doesn't have an answer on Linux.  Where that becomes unstuck, is an answer to some of the Adobe Suite, namely Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.
 
I suspect you're correct in saying a good amount of Linux users won't use closed source software.  I also suspect those users have little to no interest in the Adobe Suite or Serif products too, so no market to be lost or gained for Serif amongst that lot.  Identifying a group of people who have no interest in Serif or Adobe products, does not prove no one is interested in an answer to the Adobe Suite, or Serif products under Linux though.

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.
 
But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.
 
1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.
2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.
3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.
 
How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.
 
Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.
 
It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.
Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

Big disagree with you on this one. I used to work at Microsoft in the dev world, and if your logic actually worked in reality, the company wouldn't have seen a significant increase in Linux users when they decided to open-source a bunch of stuff and start actively working to better support Linux.
Linux is still used for a LOT of stuff, especially in the creative world. While it is not the typical OS one assumes will be used by someone interested in raster or vector graphics, or desktop publishing, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or its use is negligible.
Linux has a much broader user base than it did even five years ago, and more and more people have "defected" to it in recent years due to a general disenchantment with tech corporations on the part of consumers. It could even be a nontrivial selling point for Affinity's apps to be Linux-compatible, or to work with WINE or Valve's own WINE implementation.
When you're still trying to edge into a market that is completely dominated by a monolithic software juggernaut, it's not unreasonable to consider alternative platforms for popularizing your software - Linux included. Now, I have no idea what the devs have encountered in the past with poking at getting Affinity to work on Linux. It may be that there's just nobody at the company with the right tool set and knowledge to make it work, and there's no justification to make a budget and find someone who can.
That doesn't mean it'd be a pointless exercise, and it doesn't mean Linux is irrelevant. And, ultimately, it seems like a feedback forum for a product is about providing feedback, not trying to trivialize and discredit feedback that is pretty clearly of interest to multiple users, given how old and expansive this thread is. Adobe's apps are probably the single biggest thing keeping me on Windows now. Just about everything else I use on a daily basis is available on Linux now, and if Affinity's apps were on Linux, making the switch could actually be possible for me.

Making the graphic design sector be fully viable on linux is very different from "the year of linux" thing. Affinity is definitely not the last gear to making linux boom and multiply its userbase by 10x. We're just talking about the people who need a graphic design software, be it VFX artists, graphic designers who want to switch to linux or smaller businesses who'd rather get Affinity on a free OS rather than pay for adobe on windows. We're talking about very different goals here.

The vocal part of a group will always be the minority. There will always be people that think of the same issue but don't actually go and voice it. Hence the entire reason people have been asking for some sort of kickstarter so that people can put their money where their mouth is. a kickstarter would also be easily shareable and could be covered by youtube channels and blogs so it gets to the people who aren't vocal.
 
We don't know why adobe isn't porting their apps. I could equally say "their portfolio is too large and their current profit margin is good enough for them" or "they don't benefit from a core code because all of their apps are built different", or even "They're ok with the current WINE portability of their apps" but that's all hearsay. All we actually know is that they said they won't do it.
 
Self fulfilling prophecy. You're saying a proprietary app should not be released on linux because there aren't "enough" proprietary apps. Even if there were similar pages for windows and macos, i'm not sure you would use even a quarter of the ones on their list, so are you just looking for a ton of apps for no reason? Well just run an android emulator on it, you'll get access to tons of bloat!
anyway I don't see why this matters. Why does quantity matter in this argument? Just looking at the fact that the big VFX companies use linux, or that blackmagic is still selling their apps on linux, considering they're in the same visual industry, is a stronger argument than linking a list of proprietary apps. Also such a list doesn't factor in apps that work via electron (such as figma, a UI design solution) which are proprietary but not "released" on linux.
 
And how did you arrive to this conclusion when all you've been saying is conjecture and dismissing what the others are saying?

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.
 
But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.
 
1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.
2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.
3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.
 
How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.
 
Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.
 
It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.
Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

Making the graphic design sector be fully viable on linux is very different from "the year of linux" thing. Affinity is definitely not the last gear to making linux boom and multiply its userbase by 10x. We're just talking about the people who need a graphic design software, be it VFX artists, graphic designers who want to switch to linux or smaller businesses who'd rather get Affinity on a free OS rather than pay for adobe on windows. We're talking about very different goals here.

Making the graphic design sector be fully viable on linux is very different from "the year of linux" thing. Affinity is definitely not the last gear to making linux boom and multiply its userbase by 10x. We're just talking about the people who need a graphic design software, be it VFX artists, graphic designers who want to switch to linux or smaller businesses who'd rather get Affinity on a free OS rather than pay for adobe on windows. We're talking about very different goals here.

The vocal part of a group will always be the minority. There will always be people that think of the same issue but don't actually go and voice it. Hence the entire reason people have been asking for some sort of kickstarter so that people can put their money where their mouth is. a kickstarter would also be easily shareable and could be covered by youtube channels and blogs so it gets to the people who aren't vocal.
 
We don't know why adobe isn't porting their apps. I could equally say "their portfolio is too large and their current profit margin is good enough for them" or "they don't benefit from a core code because all of their apps are built different", or even "They're ok with the current WINE portability of their apps" but that's all hearsay. All we actually know is that they said they won't do it.
 
Self fulfilling prophecy. You're saying a proprietary app should not be released on linux because there aren't "enough" proprietary apps. Even if there were similar pages for windows and macos, i'm not sure you would use even a quarter of the ones on their list, so are you just looking for a ton of apps for no reason? Well just run an android emulator on it, you'll get access to tons of bloat!
anyway I don't see why this matters. Why does quantity matter in this argument? Just looking at the fact that the big VFX companies use linux, or that blackmagic is still selling their apps on linux, considering they're in the same visual industry, is a stronger argument than linking a list of proprietary apps. Also such a list doesn't factor in apps that work via electron (such as figma, a UI design solution) which are proprietary but not "released" on linux.
 
And how did you arrive to this conclusion when all you've been saying is conjecture and dismissing what the others are saying?

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.
 
But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.
 
1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.
2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.
3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.
 
How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.
 
Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.
 
It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.
Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

Not just Servers. like I said, it is the dominant OS for everything. Embedded, Supercomputers, Mobile (Android is powered by Linux), and so on. Desktop is only limited by availability of applications.
Because its true. No one looks at Windows and thinks "well this is engineering perfection". It is always "I need this specific app that is only on Windows or Mac". Windows has nothing to write home about other than it happens to have the widest userbase and thus has the widest catalog of apps. Its not like Windows earned that status, Microsoft paid for it with exclusive deals and institution lock-ins.
 
what? Linux has GUI, its not just a server system. Do you think Linux requires command line to use it? Linux is lower resources with GUI as well. Every single GUI in Linux is lower resource usage than Windows even the heaviest of Linux GUIs is still MUCH lighter than Windows. Storage is also a factor of waste too such as Windows requiring 40GB of space in order to just install it. Linux distros only need around 8GB to 10GB to install. Licensing cost is only for Enterprise. All of the desktop options from the big companies are free. Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE . . . are all free (gratis) thus zero licensing cost. They make money from Enterprise so desktop users can get it without cost. Yes management of hundreds/thousands of machines is easier on Linux but you dont need command line for that either. There are many GUI tools for Linux that let you do that very easily compared to Windows tools. That doesnt change anything related to resources though. A lot of people use Linux as a GUI desktop not related to automation or management of a huge set. This is another dismissive assumption. This is an assumption based on no data. I admit I also did that though so I guess you could say equally weak.
Your point negated nothing. It is obvious that app catalog is a factor . . . and if you missed it, that's the point of this thread. To help Serif see why being a part of the catalog building is valuable to them. The moment Adobe moves to Linux, Affinity will be irrelevant and I will cease to care if it supports Linux or not. People have argued if Adobe doesnt why should Serif and obviously thats why they should. If Linux had no future why would Valve spend $$ Millions to make Linux Gaming a feasible alternative to Windows gaming? It requires someone to try something and it either works or it doesnt. For Valve it has worked, gaming on Linux has increased from basically zero before Value to millions of gamers thanks to Valve.
Really? You are using the opinion of someone promoting Solaris (an Oracle product) as a way to prove Linux isnt good enough?

Linux has the argument of the best because of its growth and importance while also being better than Windows and Mac engineering. Its not dubious. What is dubious is you trying to negate my point about Linux importance using something that contradicts your own stance. You think Linux being a smaller marketshare means no one should care so you try to negate my point by using an OS with an even smaller marketshare? That seems a bit of a weird tactic. Plus Solaris has its own issues just like any software does.
Based on what do you say this? Qt yes. also .NET/C# and Flutter work on Linux as well. What exactly is missing that is a necessity in your mind? Side note: how is this related to Affinity line? On this forum, the only thing that matters is discussing the ease of development for Affinity . . . not the landscape of app development entirely.
 
Mac is a UNIX OS so its weird that you would use that term as a way to negate validity. Desktop Linux is not a pain and yes I do have people using Linux that are grandmas. The people in their 70s and 80s that I know using Linux love it because they don't have to deal with any Windows nonsense and they dont have to do anything with yum, or apt-get or any other command line stuff because command line is not a necessity that you think it is. I mean apt-get is not even used anymore on Ubuntu or Debian and it hasn't been for years, your info is very very dated.

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.
 
But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.
 
1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.
2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.
3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.
 
How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.
 
Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.
 
It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.
Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

This is just an assumption based on no clear data. Linux is just a better platform for a variety of reasons but the drastically lower resources is a huge piece of why people switch over. You can save wasted resources from Windows and thus get better FPS in games and better rendering in various tools. The FOSS concept is not even known by a lot of people until after they switch to Linux. I switched to Linux prior to learning what the philosophy was for example.
There are many people who also want to switch to Linux but the only thing holding them back is needing a professional graphics tool. I know many many designers who are in that position. It's just a Catch 22.
Interestingly enough, the low resource need is a big reason why some industries use Linux heavily, take Disney for example. Disney uses Red Hat in their animation studios and computer graphics studios because it offers so much flexibility and lowers complex render times. If Disney sees the value for paying for Linux why would people think Linux is not viable?

There are people who want to use Linux but dont because they need specific programs and if they had an alternative they would use Linux. There are people who use it for FOSS and a lot who don't. I have been using Linux for over 20 years and I do not have a FOSS only requirement . . . and a lot of people are in my pragmatist position as well. I like the philosophy of Open Source but that doesn't mean its the only viable option to be successful on Linux. Linux is a very powerful OS and is arguably the best OS engineering of all the OS available but for some reason Desktop Linux just continues to lose where in literally every other form of computing on the planet, Linux is the dominant force by a lot.
Anyway, I already presented a way Serif could end this debate and definitively find out if Linux could be a viable option or not but nothing has come from it. Maybe some day, I wont be holding my breath for this but maybe someday Serif will realize there is a market willing to pay.

Constraints are a web design feature however - or at the very least a responsive design one.
 
Also, html/css export would be useful for feature parity with figma, another layout tool  They're not made to deliver a final html product, but it could be a starting block.

IDML is not proprietary as it is published by Adobe as you well know. 🙂
I would love to see a day when major page-making software houses (no need to specify them here) collaborate on a standard (XML/IDML/WhateverML) that would specify a way to display it consistently on each software. Something similar to what has been achieved in the HTML world (Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc).

@ronnyb@fde101 - good points
I don't expect to open up an IDML from InDesign into InDesign and expect it to be perfect - especially if there are older versions of InDesign or PC and Macs involved.
But it is a useful starting point for edit-ability.
Surely there is also a business/promotional benefit to being able to export in a compatible way. If I say that I'm using Affinity, but I can package an IDML, then maybe another person in an Adobe based company might be willing to trial it without the risk of being a dead end in the process?
I'm an Affinity adopter in my organisation, but others need to see it working to be reassured.
Had I realised, that IDML wasn't available, I might not have jumped from InDesign as early.