Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Interesting! Yes early bird gets the worm. Adobe is a really big bird. Once Adobe starts eating the worm, I think all eyes (including the main focus of Canonical's app store support) will be on them, not on Affinity, should they go for the worm too.
  2. "maybe the Windows Subsystem for Linux helps?"
  3. Not disputing that a port was requested. I myself did. I was responding to the subject that "maybe the Windows Subsystem for Linux helps" and your response in particular: "I don't think so. The main motivation is to run away from MS and Windows, at all costs, clearly. They hate MS doing this evil move". I don't think that's true. I think this is actually the one popular move. But for you it's "clear". Set in stone. Your personal and friends' Linux experience don't change the meaning of your words. I apologize. You use a lot of "they" while earlier referring to "last posters are not the first ones to say so". So indeed I assumed you were talking about me in particular, and haven't read carefully enough to see the scope of the subject changed. I have read this entire thread. But not others. So I wouldn't know about that. I also haven't watched that long video. You might be right about that. This thread is no longer about the Serif port. I'm just trying to maintain a little sidebar in a stream of judgement. Not specifically you. You're quite the author of lengthy posts though. Giving me food for thought. I read them all. You have an interesting history with many OSes. I guess I'm unhappy with the sentiment recent Linux users have given you. Yes I don't know either. But I find it interesting to point out these developments. You are correct actually. I took a leap on the future and missed an important clarification: ...main source of income is expected to be web services (Azure). I'm sure you saw that Windows OEM revenue is around 10 billion. Azure web services revenue is around 10 billion. They are about in the same ballpark. However, the annual revenue growth for OEM is about 7 - 14%. For Azure that is 98% from 2017 and 89% from 2018. They overtook AWS. This will clearly be their biggest source of income. At least that's what people, especially those in the business of speculating and assuming things, are assuming. You can tell me I was wrong 12 months from now. But I don't have any Microsoft stock anyway. Maybe I should...
  4. Previously you calmed your statements a bit. However, it becomes somewhat apparent again that somehow you're quite bitter towards Linux users, and are not free from ancient preconceptions yourself. Running away from MS at all costs is not the point. I don't think anyone said that here. To illustrate, VS Code is one of the best IDE's for Linux. It's the biggest project on Github. And it's owned by MS. I think you've internalized a '90s sentiment. Things have changed a lot since then. Also they don't "hate MS doing this evil move". No one said that, in fact, many applaud this development. MS cooperated with Canonical to develop that subsystem for linux, and you can get Ubuntu apps from the Windows store. They don't always perform as good as running native, kinda like using Wine under linux but then the other way around. Moreover, MS's next Operating System for small devices will not be based on Windows, but based on Linux. And just like they stopped developing the Edge browser and decided to use the open source Chromium project as a backend to the Edge user interface, many speculate that, since MS main source of income is their web services, and since they contribute more and more to the Linux kernel, in 10 years Windows itself too will be another flavor of Linux.
  5. You are absolutely correct. I don't think anyone is questioning that. This is why most open source software is ugly (they use an interface language that can cross-compile). Except when it's pretty, such as Chromium, or it's closed source companion Google Chrome. They have a shared core, but it's not a single project. They basically have three different projects with a shared core; chromium-windows, chromium-linux and chromium-osx. Their interface code doesn't cross compile; they are completely different. Okay, long post, but I accept most of it. Initially I felt an unnecessary bias cast over linux users in general, which is not productive. I think you can find "ego" or "stubborn" in all camps. I think both Linux and OSX users know some of those Windows users that give OSX or Linux a try for 15 minutes and then proclaim: "I hate this, it doesn't work absolutely exactly the same as Windows, this thing cannot do anything." I'll give GIMP another try. 2.10 came out this year, after 6 years of "development". See if they improved the useless text tool. Don't think so, but maybe I'll be surprised!
  6. For most people I know, including myself, it's the other way around. We cling to Windows and try to make it play nice, but it just doesn't. And then desperately we give Linux a try. (OSX is not an option because we already have the PC hardware.) And quickly we sigh in relief over how much it gets out of your way. One of the primary annoyances that is still true today, is the tendency of Windows to keep begging for your attention. We nickname it click paradise. Once your entire Linux system and all software on it automatically updates in the background, you get really annoyed that Windows breaks your workflow so much, to name one thing. Second biggest annoyance is messing around with drivers all the time. Linux has all the drivers. No need to hunt down websites. I remember that tedious process of getting a HP OfficeJet printer to work, hunting down a driver that worked after the Windows 7 upgrade. In Ubuntu, it was just plug and play. And my Wacom Graphire 2 didn't work in Windows 7 because they didn't make a 64 bit driver. In Ubuntu, it was plug and play. I'd say Linux has changed considerably in the last 5 years alone. My OSX colleagues have 10 year old Linux (Ubuntu 8) experience arguments against using Linux, but I'm finding that most of them aren't valid anymore. Pre-desktop experience is not too representative of a modern desktop experience. I think this illustrates one of the problems. As you point out, the closer maintaining n+1 OSes gets to maintaining 1 OS, the easier your day will be. Effectively this is true. I do think though that doing this to maintain a workflow is metaphorically bending backwards. You can also simply use a different (commercial) program that runs natively. The one thing that's lacking natively though is that good Photo editor. That's why threads like this were happening. One can argue or disagree, but Linux users are very loyal to their meticulously configured command center, and they will buy half a chance for double the price if it means one less reason to boot Windows, and that's just not going to change. This is why, they argue, being first to market with a missing piece of software might be an interesting endeavor. Being the first to market in any market is interesting, because you don't have to fight for market share. Unfortunately Affinity indicated not wanting to spread over 3 OSes right now. That's fair. Someone else will eventually be first to market. I would like to amend that it depends on the job if you work for a boss. If your boss is developing a Windows game, it would make sense to use Windows. When developing a website, well you can use any OS. When developing a cross-platform engine like Unity or Unreal Engine, you might need to multi-boot either way. When you're self-employed though, or in a small team, you might prefer one piece of inferior software if that results in having a superior workflow. In the end, I'm not saying you're wrong to multi-boot to 3 different OSes so you can use the best tools natively. I'm saying it's a subjective preference, just like preferring to stay in 1 OS is a preference. People can be fanatic about their preferences. Where I disagree with you though, is that you use the sentiment of "fighting egos" to describe one preference, while calling the other preference not much short of the objective truth.
  7. I think you mean some. Literally all of them in here are asking to get Affinity on Linux and most of them are willing to pay more. This is an untrue preconception, and the opposite has been observed again and again. The most interesting example is that Humble Indie game bundle where you can pay what you want. It turns out that on average, Linux users pay 3 times what Windows users pay: "The stats are clear, though. On average Linux users have paid $11.63 for the bundle where as Windows users paid just $3.80. Mac users fall in the middle and averaged $6.61. Overall, the average is $4.78 per purchase." I'm not sure it's fair to put "I don't want to have to boot in Windows" in the "fixed mindset" / "stubborn tantrum" category, and call OS comfort a lack of knowing the other OS. Some (many?) people get really attached to their apps, configuration, launcher, emails, music library, project folders, assets, menu layouts, screen calibration, nightly display color-shift, font icons and color-scheme, automation, background tasks, take-a-break-software, all the NLE/IDE/Workflow software you use, and all the websites they are logged in to. I think it is quite an understandable reason, not wanting to give all that up just so you can use one program. Your computer is your command center for the day, but you would have to give it up in order to use your graphics program. You also break your workflow of switching back and forth between your asset editor and everything else, because you cannot multitask between two OSses. Booting to a different OS for one program is like leaving your command center with pillows, heating and a cup holder, just to sit on an uncomfortable camping chair. I think this is pretty universal no matter what your OS of preference is. If you consider however, that a Mac user might just want to work without having to make decisions, and Linux users are probably using Linux because they can make a lot of decisions about how the system presents itself, you might find that Linux users are the most reluctant to boot in Windows. Not because of a stubborn fixed mindset, but - apart from the reasons mentioned above - because they spent the most time building their command center just the exact way they need it to be in order to work at peek productivity and comfort. Either way, the point is moot anyway, because you cannot argue against someones preference. Try saying the words fixed mindset and stubborn to someone who is passionate about e.g. cultural inheritance, veganism and animal rights, or same sex marriage, and see if it will turn out to be a productive conversation.
  8. Isn't that the beauty of Kickstarter though? This happens often. About 1 in 10 projects fail to deliver, and in 87% of those cases, no refund is given because all the money was spent on attempting to deliver. Backing a project is risky, and backers should know that. https://www.kickstarter.com/fulfillment Thank you for looking up that quote. I had indeed read this, and figured perhaps it was outdated, especially given his comments about OpenGL considering that Proton for OpenGL games was released in January this year. I did not mean "WINE breaking" that literally. If running through WINE is unsuccessful, no matter what the reason. If the reason is that the installer has unmapped calls (it does, I wrote about this), one could still entertain the idea of using a different installer, or assess what it would take to get this library mapped.
  9. I actually do have a Red Hat t-shirt somewhere so I guess I am a nerd. My last thought about this for now: Are "we" allowed to entertain the idea that the Affinity Windows team could identify what specific dependency they use that causes WINE to break, and assess the possibility and feasibility of changing said dependency? Anything been said about this by Affinity developers in one of those topics I haven't scanned yet? Dinner now. It will be quiet in here for a few moments.
  10. @R C-R okay, I'm digging through them. I was just a bit annoyed by all the name calling (Linux people (AKA me) are kids, nerds, protesters, stupid, etc) by people who refuse to make a single quote to substantiate claims. At first I couldn't resist the temptation to respond in kind, but now I am in the acceptance phase and I just want to know what was said. I've scanned "Linux. Seriously now." for posts by users with a "staff" badge. And this is all that was said on the subject: It's looks like @Patrick Connor knows more. Does he have an ssh server on his brain? I'd like so grep through his memory. I'll scan other threads later. It's dinnertime now. Time to go home and make some Linux pasta with Ubuntu sauce.
  11. I apologize. English (British or otherwise) is not my native tongue. The only formal UK debates I'm following for entertainment purposes are the ones with the lady and the blonde dude arguing about Brexit. I'm not sure how sensitive this issue is, so I'm not sure if this response is funny or distasteful.
  12. Oh, okay, I am following this topic since the beginning, because it is relevant to my interests. I didn't know there were four more topics on this. I searched this topic when I made quotes, and from this topic alone, the quotes are accurate. All these claims of somehow angered users felt insincere. As a moderator you probably know that people arguing don't like to quote because then they cannot exaggerate. I was trying to set the record straight. I did not know they had many other topics mixed in with this one when they claimed that things were said "over and over" (but not in this topic). I did not know the Linux virus has spread beyond this topic. I did not know (and still don't) that all ideas had already been rejected. I'm interested in reading about this. When I click this link, I go to a post from you: I do not understand what you mean with this post in the context of "voted on"? If you meant to quote yourself, I agree. I was (and still am) under the impression that your colleagues whom I quoted here are or were open to talking about this, even if it was just for a glance. In that context, I'm not challenging that Serif decides it's own strategy, and I am confused by this quote as to relevance.
  13. I thought I was thorough when I went back through the pages and quoted staff responses in my previous post. I did this for the purpose of being objective, so we can stop using the length of the thread as an excuse to say "I am right, it was said somewhere." For that reason, could you be so kind and provide the relevant quotes from staff members (identifiable by their badge) using the quote button on their posts for this (and those other claims)? Do so and I will stand corrected. I'm just a man. I've followed this thread with interest. But I can be wrong. Perhaps I missed something. In the mean time however, I'm going to assume that this is your personal reality.
  14. This might work for people who use Affinity on a daily basis, but when you're using it on a daily basis, you will probably not buy Affinity. When I did graphic editing on a daily basis, I had an Adobe subscription. As for what I consider to be the Affinity target audience (freelancers, indie developers, anyone not using it on a daily basis), I don't think your suggestion is realistic. No Indie game developer in the history of ever will dual boot on their laptop. No freelancer will use two machines in the office, just for the jobs where they need half a week of editing in a month's work. Even if they have the software, licenses, and machines, they would still not do it. I know this empirically, because this is me. They would rather work with the inferior and limited GIMP and other software that works over WINE. I have both Affinity licenses. Bought them immediately when the Windows version came out. One, as encouragement funding because I had just ended my Adobe subscription. And two, because I secretly hoped they would either eventually make a Linux version (assumed small probability) or the Windows version would run on WINE (assumed big probability, which in hindsight turns out is wrong). But I simply don't use them, because Ifor the same reason as why I don't switch cars every time I want to listen to a different radio station. So here is the truth which I think some Linux users would agree, rated from 1 (totally agree) to 3 (neutral) to 5 (totally disagree) Would love Affinity Linux version, willing to pay double for new license, even when already having an Affinity Windows license Would love Affinity WINE support Would use inferior tools like GIMP (and native tools Corel AfterShot on Linux, while using competitor's tools over WINE Would actually dual-boot Would use two machines with KVM to use Windows/Affinity and Linux together So we're all at point 3. We're arguing about point 1 as long as the Affinity Team members have not addressed our answers to their questions yet. Meanwhile we're proposing that point 2 might be something to realistically look at too, since software like AlienSkin Exposure and games like Doom 4 proof that WINE performance is orders of magnitude better than and nearly uncomparable to virtualization, which has unbearable performance with graphics software for some reason. To Windows users and older people they just might. Younger people that still have some creativity in their brain can see the questions embedded in the first two quotes. Or rather invitations to solve for x in their if x then y statements. Your (sic) are seeing what you want to see too. That's fine. The only problem is: This topic is not relevant for you. Why are you here?