Redsandro

While you are right that the statistics have no real relevance in this discussion, I think you misunderstand what these statistics are. The servers you mention are irrelevant. The statistics 100% show users/clients, not web-servers. The fonts are popular as a CDN (content-delivery-network). If you "use" this on your webserver, it means you point to it on your webserver. The client still downloads it from their desktop or mobile, which generates the statistics. So all statistics are end users, none are webservers. The reason that you are right about the relevance is because Linux includes Android (mobile).

Off-topic here, but that's not accurate. fonts.google.com is the web-server. It's a CDN. Those requests come from real user agents. I don't see Android there, so that might be identified as Linux, but web servers have nothing to do with this.

You can run it in fullscreen and even HiDPI/4k mode works nicely. You can do everything. Except open a file or create a new file. 😂

Try installing wine-staging (5.2) and select this version in the launcher settings. It gets a LITTLE bit farther. For me it very quickly crashes.

I have the same experience as you. I manage to get past everything, but then at the final splash screen, nothing else happens. The Lutris Wine log (button on the right panel) shows the following: This was supposedly fixed in wine 5.2 but my Lutrix installer seems to download Wine 5.0. I wonder if the current install script actually works for anyone, or if this is just an experiment.

For me this is not working. Half of the winetricks command end/freeze with an empty window open (but work fine with the default installed wine). However since it's working for you, I'm optimistic this will work itself out! Where can we track when this patch is being merged to mainline? I prefer to (wait for and) install a package version from the beta repository, so not to mess with the ability to run my existing wine apps.

Not sure if relevant, but here is the English download page. https://store.serif.com/en-us/update/windows/photo/1/ In case download contains i18n.

A lot of people have similar stories to yours. And while we (Linux crowd) understand the palette of reasons and benefits, from an outside perspective it still sounds like a choice you could have not made, i.e. complaining. The old comment by Patrick illustrates this well: This is of course a charged statement because Affinity makes tools that you use monthly, weekly, or sometimes daily. Disneyworld is something you'd visit between zero and one times. So a better comparison would be to move to a different city that has no fast food companies, and asking if McDonalds, KFC, Subway or Chipotle to open shop in your city. But the statement does show what it sounds like when you ask for Serif on Linux after stating that you're moving away from Apple. I think (happy) Windows/MacOS users don't appreciate the 'sacrifice' (i.e. comfy availability of commercial software) you've made, because they don't understand the accumulation of things that make it worth it. Even then, if you're switching to Linux full-time it probably means that you have grown accustomed to it for the past 5+ years, and have gotten acquainted with the general community mindset of getting everything to run on everything. This is in stark contrast with - generalizing from the loudest comments here - Windows (and especially) MacOS users, that seem to appreciate exclusivity while they are a part of it. I guess the move from MacOS to Windows already incurred a loss of exclusivity and some angered responses over that were heard at the time too. The MacOS "creatives" had already suffered a dilution of their community with Windows "mainstreamers". And now they should welcome the Linux "zealots"? Hell no. Linux is the opposite of exclusivity, because everyone can install it on everything, for free. That can't be good or sustainable. It will infect everything it touches and turn it into the same ugly GTK+ muck we know Linux to be. (This paragraph is a dramatization from the perspective of a Linuxphobe.) What I'm trying to say is that you, and the many before you, need a different story that appeals to the target audience (not the choir) more. I'm not sure it's possible though.

I don't even know which software can do pano and which don't. At some point you stick to your tricks, and I guess some of us used http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ (FOSS) before it became a mainstream automation in commercial software.

@Mark Ingram I do believe the farther you distance yourself from Windows, the higher the percentage of creative people is. If one in a thousand Windows users is creative, and one in two hundred OSX users is creative, it would mean that your Windows and OSX sales are approximately the same. One in 20 Linux users would need to be creative to have an equal sales share, and that's not going to happen.

Hi @Noel Schenk, They did not make any promise, but even if they did, it would cost a lot more than that. As TonyB said on July 13, 2014: That was in 2014 though. Five years later, they've emphasized their disinterest for a Linux version on multiple occasions. A lot of Linux users (myself included) have indicated they would pay double the Affinity license fee for native Linux versions, as an incentive for them to port them. Affinity is probably honored, but it's frankly still not worth their while. I don't think we should beg a commercial party to develop for Linux if they don't want to any further. Everyone should be happy about it, and good lock to both parties otherwise. It's better for us (Linux users) to raise bounties on FOSS software for features you are missing and/or donate it to FOSS projects: Donate to GIMP, donate to Krita, donate to InkScape or donate to the Libre Graphics Meeting.

Hi @Argo, The Affinity team has already debated this internally and is not currently interested in the uncertain Linux market. A lot of Linux users (myself included) have indicated they would pay double the Affinity license fee for native Linux versions, as an incentive for them to port them. I suggest we all use half of that money and donate it to people who'd receive it with open arms: Donate to GIMP, donate to Krita, donate to InkScape or donate to the Libre Graphics Meeting.

In my experience there is too much performance loss in a classic VM with shared hardware. Really bad framerate. Don't do it. Don't take my word for it; try it out with the Designer Trial version first. What is reported to work pretty good is a VM using a dedicated video card (and plenty of RAM) for Affinity using VFIO. The video card will be more costly than a Windows license, and it takes some time to set up, but you'll definitely save a lot of time not being handicapped without access to your computer as would happen when dual-booting. @Qu4ntumSpin suggested something like https://looking-glass.hostfission.com/ to tie it all together. @xam @D’T4ils this topic really becomes quite interesting when you add half a dozen people or so to the ignore list. Serif is not going to do this (1). I prefer backing a team that does want to work towards a Linux version. There are however no real quality contenders besides Adobe and Serif, right? So (2) is an option if we can get someone to map everything necessary without any support from Serif whatsoever, but perhaps 3 would be better: 3. Can we create a script to hot-switch VFIO between Linux and Affinity-VM using only one videocard? Though unrelated, this seems to attempt exactly this.

Now, that was in 2014, and as the products have grown (and new products like iPad and Publisher have arrived), that cost will have risen, unfortunately. This thread is popular, but ultimately we've only had a fraction of a percent of people request a Linux version so far. Now, if this post had 20,000 people in it, we'd be clamouring to build for Linux... We're not saying never, we're just saying that our limited resources are best spent working on other things right now. And I say all that as a Linux fan. Thank you @Mark Ingram. This brings some clarity, although I had to look up the word clamour. The team is not really interested in doing this right now, and you're happy with the spoils of the current markets. There's generally no interest in a crowd source either, because the team is not confident that the spoils of the Linux market would remain interesting after a theoretical crowdfund. The proverbial banana would be 20.000 people showing up here suggesting that Affinity for Linux would be a lovely idea. TL;DR: Not now, maybe later.

I simply mean that (a) Patrick quotes (I mean links to posts) are less relevant to me as I stated before because of their prevalence in prepossessed under- or overtone, yet you almost exclusively pick (link to) them, 82% of the time to be precise. I'm looking for objective initial statements, which I have all quoted in the second half of my previous post for everyone's benefit. And (b), when trying to summarize what is important, you pick (link to) almost exclusively meta-discussion - which is what I meant by saying you seem to focus more on a different aspect of this discussion than I, quotes (links) 1 through 4, 6, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 to be precise - rather than original statements summarizing what this is about, which (building on your idea to do so) is what I have done in the second half of my previous post for everyone's benefit. Next, quote (link) 5, 7, 13 and 22 are "Sorry, but we currently have no plans to release on Linux". See, while you have done a considerable effort - I know because I have done the same right after that post - for which I have thanked you (yesterday) which has been credited to your "total reputation", substantially there's not much left, and it really doesn't add a lot to respond to them, but if it makes you feel any better, I will address them here: Quote (link) 19: "We have little appetite for a Kickstarter at his time." I know. I knew all the way back in my first post. Notice how this statement leaves room for working up an appetite. Quote (link) 11: "How can we [market and have a single point of sale] on every supported Linux machine?" Asked and answered. Quote (link) 9: Apparently now the amount of money that can be raised is irrelevant. This is a unique statement contradicting everything staff said before. You can't take this statement seriously, as I jokingly illustrated in my previous post. Quote (link) 20: "It's not all about the money. We are not saying never we are saying not now." I think this (2018) is literally the first time "not now" is said, rather than "not likeley, not confident" I'm saving quote 8 for below. Six here Why do you keep bringing this up? It's not interesting. We can both point to rude behavior from select users. If you're justifying being rude to everyone, including new people, because some people are rude, than I don't think you had anything to do with PR communication or social media in your 10 companies. Also, whataboutism. Those yelling freeloaders will be forgotten, but Serifs missteps will be remembered. That's just how it works when you've built up a name. It would make sense to release an enthusiastic and friendly statement on the matter, and link to that every single time, rather than being lured into the occasional trap. This was literally my point when I posted here earlier this week for the first time again, and I can't believe no one agrees that this might be a good idea, and attacks me on everything else except my main point. This is not what I meant with "they don't want the discussion to close". Apart from one single quote in the entire existence of this forum, they never definitively said they were "not going to" (so leave it alone). They used words like "not very keen" (so convince me otherwise). If they wanted the discussion to close without implying censorship, they would very simply release a statement and keep linking to that, rather than engage in discussion as if things are up for debate. First, there are a lot of arguments against a theoretical Linux version that just don't make sense. If the only reason you don't drive me to work is because you don't want to get wet, then I want to try to make you understand that a car is not filled with water. Second, I post in bursts of about 10 posts. with 58 posts, I'm here a couple of days less than twice per year to check out progress on this. I usually start with a nice post, and I get attacked for everything except the main I was saying. Eventually I lose the slowly regained trust because of some angry defensive intolerant users in this community. No, not "because people don't agree with me". I'm in a lot of communities and a lot of people enthusiastically and patiently disagree with each other and get back on point. This must be one of the most bitter communities I know. And although that's probably only towards Linux enthusiasts, being a (non-dual-booting) Linux user myself, in my perception this is it. Also, I have a 2:1 post to thanks ratio. Half the things I may just make sense. This is not addressing anything, that's a knockdown argument. facepalm.jpg I know I still owe you quote (link) 8 but I just lost my will to live. We're so much at cross purposes, we're having two different conversations. This is a waste of both our time and energy. We've spend 8 Serif licenses worth of time trying to talk to each other, and it falls on deaf ears like a brick in the water. Let's voluntarily ignore each other, and keep conversing with the people that we do have a constructive rapport with.

Perhaps this is relevant?

In 2014 the answer was no, but the main concern might not be relevant anymore. The second concern, which is clear (from trying to run it) is still there. Some calls are not mapped (properly) so it would be interesting to know: what component(s) in their framework causes this; Is the incompatibility a side-effect or deliberate (because of reasons) Is this component developed in-house or can we bother upstream (the company that makes the component) is it replaceable by an alternative with no performance penalty to the native version (.NET/Mono?) how big is the pool of unmapped calls Can this realistically be mapped/reversed by WINE developers Would Serif applaud or condemn this I think that's the GUI. It's not a law that a GUI can't be optimized at the hardware level. I don't know. I guess there's an ocean of possibilities between VM speeds (used by some linux users), WINE speeds (remember, triple A games that have not been optimized for Linux or Wine at all are now on par with native performance), and Mac speeds. Linux users are more tolerant than Windows users with performance. -edit- A developer said in 2014 OpenGL was used, but I guess they switched to Direct3D at some point, which is unfortunate. -edit 2- Or was the developer talking about Photo and the tester talking about Designer?

Me too without dedicated hardware from DaVinci though. Mainly for color grading.I don't mind the occasional frame drop from non-quattro nVidia cards for this purpose.

Ouch. I had forgotten my annoyance with the community here, but this brings it back. I'm thankful that Patrick is the one Serif staff member that kept us up-to-date with informative, patient and objective posts regarding this topic, but sometimes he's a completely different person, greeting multiple new enthusiastic (innocent) users - that aren't even being rude or demanding; just showing their interest and their willingness to pay - with posts dripping in sarcasm and antipathy. Maybe it's a British thing, but it doesn't work out for some other cultures. I (forgot but) remember thinking Patrick's posts were too prepossessed to be considered Serif's voice, and I have been mainly looking to hear from other staffers, because surely not all of Serif doesn't care about alienating Linux users, right? Let's call the Linux people 'campaigners' then. The opposition indicated their personal motivation as being protective of their own interests in the form of possible development speed degradation, so perhaps 'protectionists' is a fair label. You are correct that these posts have indeed all been read by me. Most of your quotes are just cherry-picked Linux campaigners being rude, and responses to that. I can cherry-pick protectionists being rude in response, but it's irrelevant. I think you focus more on a different aspect of this discussion than I. After cleaning up, your quotes boil down to two statements from Serif staffers: 1. Let's do a crowd fund set at 500,000 2. We're not likely to do a Linux version any time soon. Many questions ensue, because there was enthusiasm for the idea of a crowd fund and many good arguments. Yet none was really addressed satisfactory. I think that nothing was addressed after that at all. Just point 2 being re-hashed and slowly changed to a more definite stance as were it a game of Chinese whispers. I come back after a while and observe these same ideas for a crowdfund and following discussions continued 10 more circles. Apparently it's not that clear. This is why I suggested a friendly enthusiastic statement from Serif, not tucked away in 1000 posts, would be the discussion-closing non-alienating PR++ thing to do. Looks like they don't want the discussion to close, and keep it around to collect the occasional good argument, or merely for entertainment purposes. Also keep in mind that the actual statements from Serif that is being referred to are years ago. So when in a topic from 2014 there would not be a Linux version in the near future, I can see campaigners wondering if in 2019 perhaps we are now past that old near future, and we can discuss the new near future until the leap year in 2024. Another reason Linux campaigners get attributed the label of 'not shutting up about it' and 'not taking no for an answer', besides Serif not closing the door, is really the consequence of protectionists defending Serif's position with argumentational fallacies and quotes out of context. No wonder a campaigner thinks: "I think their assumptions are misguided. There is room for rectification." For example, take your quote: Saying this shows you attribute relevance to this. But it is not indicative of the Great Unknown Variable™ (defined as: Enough outside demand in the Linux scene to be profitable). It was merely a response to a very specific question. Of course their existing users won't have a Linux version high on their list. Perhaps 1 percent (or more since it's number 5 on said list) of Serif users do dual boot and realize it would be easier if they could remove Windows alltogether. If you want to bring this up, you need to look at the new market potential, at all the non-Serif-users, at the global desire for design software on Linux. So the Adobe on Linux petition had 11k signatures. Those are the people that would be interested in a crowdfund. Early adopters. Initial goal reached. But they are a fraction of the demand, because Linux users are not some Borg hive mind that all know about a petition nor all care to pay an Adobe-sized license where they might pay a Serif-sized license. Once the software exists on the platform, the second wave of public that became aware of this new option will consider buying. I can go on hypothesizing but it would look like I already forgot Serif is not interested. This is for illustrative purposes only, to show how the discussion is kept alive by the people that want to see it end. Protectionists keep giving juicy opportunities to argue. That said, for future reference, it's better to quote actual questions and statements rather than rude behavior and frustrated responses. About a Linux version (Answered: Consensus seems to be Canonical commercial support and Snapcraft covering 20 distributions.) (Looks like the backend was built with platform independence in mind. We're talking about a GUI port) (It was a good joke referencing the main variable that was a concern at least back then) (Overwhelming enthusiasm for the idea of a crowdfund ensues, and some volunteers step up to organize one) (Unanswered iirc. 18 months of debate and ideas, until finally:) (Repetitive pattern:) (Answer had been given before:) (Not for all the gold in the kingdom?) About WINE compatibility (The above has since been addressed by multiple users. Much has been done by WINE devs, CodeWeavers, and Valve over the past 5 years. Triple A games can now be played smoothly.) About continuing this discussion

I think it's a interesting hypothesis at best, but far from abundantly clear. One could also hypothesize that they are too busy developing new features. One honest question quickly turns into 4 pages of passionate discussion with lengthy posts. No Serif developer who doesn't care all that much wants to dig through 80 posts of conflict to see if one intelligent question was asked. "Ain't nobody got time for that." In fact, the reason I keep asking "why" (are (some of) you so passionately arguing a point you're not in a position to argue) is because I hypothesize that you are purposely diluting honest questions with endless points and re-iterations with the intent of making it unattractive for busy Serif developers to read, precisely so that you can falsely claim their disinterest is intentional and abundantly clear. There is no need to escalate this hypothetical any further. I'm just debunking some accusations that were made to me personally. At the time the proposal was done (by someone) there was no animosity yet (except from some users who felt the development speed would be threatened). There was just a suggestion of a goal and an idea of how to reach that. Perhaps Serif would be enthusiastic that the community would go through such lengths to make something possible, and enthusiastically condone it. However, they were not and dit not. So no one did any campaign against anyone's wishes. And now we know. -edit- And now we know people that have been here a couple of years know. But new enthusiastic Affinity using Linux fans don't know, because all this happened tucked away somewhere within hundreds of posts that the new users have never seen. They are under the false impression that Serif might enthusiastically condone it. When the old community members (not Serif) are campaigning against it rather aggressively, those new users don't know or understand that these campaigners are armed with actual knowledge of things that played out before. So the circle keeps happening, and one way to stop this would be with a clear statement from Serif, not a line tucked away between hundreds of posts from years ago.

It might be all that matters to them, but it is not all that matters. Serif is alienating 2% of their community and their users. This is a guesstimated number. They might not care. You might not care. Some companies go through great lengths to keep even a single customer happy though. Because approachability, openness and socialbility matter to the customer. You told me your reasons for 'campaigning' against a Linux version and that's fair. However, I'm curious why after four pages of arguing everything except my main point, you don't echo my suggestion for a statement that addresses a couple of the questions paying customers who happen to dual boot have about this? Wouldn't that be beneficial to both you and me? Wouldn't that also make Serif look good, as they would be forthcoming and engaging rather than frustratingly meager in their communication in this specific regard? I must admit I have missed that. Could you provide a large quantity of links to separate occurrences where they have stated so? abundant /əˈbʌnd(ə)nt/ available in large quantities

I was answering R C-R's questions as what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As you can read in yesterday's post, I am not actually advocating this. There are a dozen things begging a response more than that since obsoleted figure. This is "The Affinity Suite of products" forum. Only Serif knows their business well enough to determine that. Although this is "The Affinity Suite of products" forum. Either way, this discussion is irrelevant. It is unfortunate that you managed to lure me into meta-discussion when my point was that Linux users would really appreciate a more forthcoming and verbose statement from Serif that answers Linux related questions from (paying) customers. Now a staffer comes along and really does the opposite of de-escalating by responding to the least interesting assertion in these pages. Yes, perhaps there has been an answer somewhere else: Do we know what blocks WINE and why? Would Serif accept bounties for removing/replacing this part?

Because Tony said directly and without hesitation it would cost $500,000 to build it, period. You are downplaying it in order to passionately prevent it from happening, but only Serif knows their business well enough to determine that. It would make absolute sense though that they named a bigger number than they would realistically expect to require. Asked by Andy, and answered by the community: Ubuntu and Snapcraft. Snapcraft supports over 20 distro's, covering the top 10 most used distro's, with a single package. This is irrelevant. A trademark infringement is when you cause consumers to be confused about the source of the trademarked item. There is no trademark infringement when a crowdfunding campaign clearly states that they are not Serif, but they are an initiative to prove to Serif that the $500,000 proposed at the time could be raised. Because it is spin doctoring. It's turning a fear into fact. For half a million you can hire a team to build a Linux UI framework in parallel to the Windows team, the OSX team, and the core team. You probably need a separate team for that either way, because Windows developers are Windows developers. Looks like we're in agreement after all. Don't you think a clear and verbose official statement on a blog or website that everyone can point to when another crowdfund is suggested for the 12th time would be a good way to finally settle this?

Even though I have my criticism of Affinity with regards to this very topic and we're debating either how to fill a gap in the market that Affinity is not willing to fill or how to convince Affinity to change their mind, I have also shown my love by purchasing two licenses from them just to show my support. Admittedly, they had just released the Windows version and my hope was that a Linux version would follow soon, which I would gladly purchase again at 200% cost. With that said, people can feel free to "report post" and let moderators decide. It's still their forum and they can decide how far this discussion is allowed to go. I can high-five you on this for the most part. I use GIMP nearly daily. But it is definitely in nearly every way not Affinity Photo or Adobe Photoshop. Just try to put a nice title with some border and shadow and what not on a picture you want to use for a photo magazine cover and export CMYK. See how long it takes three different people on Adobe Photoshop, Affinity Photo, and GIMP. You'll find that the first two are on par, and the latter takes an unreasonable amount of time. The GIMP user will be working on that darn border while the first two are out having lunch. He'll be faster doing it programmatically. That ease of use is worth money. Not all the money in the world, but a certain amount of money. It varies from person to person. For me personally, it's worth about 200% of the price of Affinity Photo. Blender, which I also worked with is a whole different game. While GIMP is really far behind compared to Photo and Photoshop, Blender is really top notch. I preferred working with it even though I had access to 3d Studio Max and Lightwave through the company I worked at. Blender is so advanced and full-featured, it hurts a little when Blender as a FOSS alternative to commercial 3d software is compared to GIMP as a FOSS alternative to commercial 2d software. Blender is used on a lot of tv shows (like Westworld). As for movies, Next Gen (Netflix) is done entirely in Blender. Jeff Bell: "We're effectively 100% Blender, other than plugging in apps in a few areas to supplement departmental workflows" I've been to some developer conferences and big strides are being made with WebASM. Assembly is the language that is compiled to machine language, and WebASM is a pretty new technology in development to compile binaries straight from the browser. In a lot of cases performance is nearly on par with native apps, although some functions to achieve this goal have not yet been implemented. It's quite beta. Here is an example where they compiled the game Doom 3 in WebASM and WebGL. Check the performance, it works for me in Chrome 76 on Linux. I believe that - while not this year - in a year or two perhaps web based apps will slowly start to get to the forefront. You will see more and more Progressive Web Apps (that are multiplatform) rather than native apps.

You're giving a bit of a spin on what actually happened. It's quite simple. It was literally said they would consider a Linux version if they were confident they would recoup the $500,000 it would cost to develop. Nothing more, nothing less. Once someone was actually going to set up a crowdfund to raise $500,000, they quickly stated that they would not consider a Linux version regardless. I think one of the reasons Serif doesn't officially and verbosely respond to the interest and their decision cq change of heart is because of the volunteer spindoctors among their community that passionately reject Linux aspirations (Why? To what end?) in their stead, using the repetitive argumentum ad logicam that Serif themselves haven't actually made. And even if Serif might have inadvertently appeared to do so in the beginning of this topic, they retracted said argument by stating a Linux version will not be considered regardless. The current limbo is beneficial for them because it keeps hopes up for Linux users so that they won't wander off and grow some competitor's community (any competitor that hasn't rejected Linux as a near-future possibility), which is more likely to happen if they would make an official statement that there won't be a Linux version. I recall a developer saying in one of these topics that the core of the software is actually already platform independent. If this is accurate, it would be extra work in the platform dependent UI only. As a developer, I estimate that 80% of the cost for setting up a new platform asset is building the custom framework that makes the UI possible on that platform. 20% is for developing the interface itself. So even if an estimated 10% of functionality was added to the interface in the last year; that would translate to 102% of initially stated development cost. So even though this is irrelevant since there won't be a Linux version, and even though this is just debating a guess versus an educated guess, I am confident that the initial statement of development cost is still accurate, and this argument too does not make me think anything has changed considerably.