Redsandro

In response to this, and also for Linux users that mention using GIMP as much as possible so they don't have to boot Windows: You can also try the multi platform Polarr Photo Editor (Basic version is free, full version is $24 per year). It's available on Snapcraft, and as you can see on the statistics this snap is used on Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Zorin OS, KDE Neon, Elementary OS, Fedora, Debian, Deepin, Manjaro, Parrot PS and Arch Linux. Maybe more. While it doesn't compare to Affinity Photo or Adobe Photoshop by a long shot (so I think in light of this discussion it's okay for me to mention this app, and if not, moderators should feel free to remove this post), it does have pretty descent RAW photo support and might make a hobbyist happy for being able to do quick photo series while on holiday or something. Also available for Android tablets and Chromebooks (and of course Windows). "Anyone can argue that if what we’re doing is not making money, then it’s probably not worth doing anyway. Fortunately, we see a large number of people who are willing to pay, and we believe Polarr does have a product-market fit in the photo enthusiast community." Especially when they work offline too, and can be installed as a stand-alone app. I believe Polarr is an Electron app.

I'm sorry, but you can't offer this circulus in demonstrando. Once users started to organize a crowd funding campaign that would definitely prove or disprove whether or not there would be enough demand to recoup the costs, Affinity informed us that they would not do a Linux version even if the goal would be reached, effectively stopping the community initiative from definitively probing the demand. The result is two-fold. One, we haven't proven demand. But more importantly, you can't argue that we can't prove demand after stopping attempts to do just that. So yes, it is my view and the view of some of my peers that Serif is actively stifling serious attempts to probe demand. If this perception is wrong, it could be beneficial in a PR sense to write an official statement or semiofficial blog post as suggested before. This is a classic argumentum ad hominem. I see you do that a lot. There was nothing remotely zealous about my post. Obviously, I'm not inciting a rebellious movement. I'm telling people that further proceedings have lost practical significance, which is basically the opposite of an uncompromising pursuit. Your relentless anti-Linux propaganda stream of logical fallacies over the past year or so (Why? To what end?) have more in common with the definition of a zealot, so I think you are projecting. They have not done so back when I was in this discussion, two odd years or so ago. So I think "very clearly and openly" is quite a flattering way of saying that someone wrote a comment somewhere between the thousands of posts on this forum. I believe the fact that the "idea" to crowdfund keeps popping up proofs this. People suggesting this weren't there when it almost happened and was shot down. This is why I believe a written blog post or verbose official statement would be a good idea. Everyone can just point to the article and the circular discussion is over.

There were some people starting to set it up, and staff responded that it was moot because even with the money raised they would not make a Linux version. Remember to say thanks to the announcement that there won't be a Linux version.

Dear @kleber.swf and others, I understand the frustration. First, Serif said: We would need to be confident that we'd recoup a certain amount of cost. Then the community said: Okay. We will crowdsource that amount. Some folks started preparing a campaign, and Serif was quick to respond: Please don't do it. Even if you raise the money, we decided not to do it. I also understand the frustration about their lack of oppenness to the community. First they giveth (a set of rules that would make a Linux version possible) then taketh away. And they don't communicate their rationale. With the immense performance boost of WINE/Linux in recent years, and the compatibility with many triple A titles, people wonder why Affinity products have some secret sause that causes them not to work with WINE. Because WINE-compatibility would seem like a descent middle-ground loved and appreciated by Linux users. I haven't been able to get a comment about that. While a forthcoming and verbose blog or article from Affinity/Serif to their Linux fanbase - who are often paying customers with a Windows license - about their rationale and answers to the questions about the change of heart and WINE problems would surely make those community members fall in love, Serif is taking a different approach of mostly ignoring the demand except for the occasional sneer that we can't just demand a Linux version. And they are right. So that's it. We feel like it would make sense to build a Linux version. And with people saying that the core is basically platform independent so 'only' the UI would need to be ported to Linux, it feels closer than ever. But it's not going to happen. Serif has decided. They are not the Linux heros some of us hoped. Let's stop promoting Affinity among our colleagues as Adobe killer, and wait for something more inclusive to come along. All you can do is go to the posts where some of the staff summarize their position and click thanks -> sad face on the bottom right to document your point of view in numbers.

My colleague is using PS CC 2018 in Linux. Claims it works fine. With the new Wine 4.0, Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 seems to work on Fedora (Silver), Ubuntu (Bronze) and OpenSuse (Platinum): https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=36206&iTestingId=104933 On Wine 3, it can be done but requires some work: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7ql4kl/the_screenshots_of_photoshop_cc_2018_64bit_on/ I have not tested this myself. I unsubscribed from Adobe CC years ago because I am not using it enough to warrant a fulltime fee each month. I'm following the developments with interest though, because as we all (some) know, the first software that works fine across distro's without the need to do a lot of workarounds will win the Linux market share. (Unless it's Adobe CC because that's simply too expensive for freelancers that won't use it fulltime.)

It's an interesting question and I guess that we can't convince anyone with more than an educated guess type prediction that just might be as wrong as European Central Bank predictions for bank sustainability have proven to be wrong as often as not, even though they are made up by some of the most well-paid banking professionals. What I personally believe is that Linux users - not everyone but generalized - are among the most creative people with a well weighed and tried preference and requirement profile that ended them up using Linux. There are also insanely creative people using Windows. However I'm making a generalization to show why I'm thinking this way, in case you're interested. People use Windows by default. Sociology student, history teacher, lawyer (working with scanned-in documents, it's crazy. But that's a different story. I talk to a lot of people on train commutes.) Most people stick to Windows, some try Mac OS. Of them, most stick to Mac OS, but some still not satisfied in need of more control move to Linux. I mean, I know a huge amount of Windows users that just write a document, or play bejeweld or cards. See someone using a Windows laptop and talk to them. I'm pretty sure saying 1 in 10 is a creator (creative person working on some form of interesting media project) is very optimistic. But when you encounter a random MacOS user, odds are they are a creator. Maybe 4 out of 10 times when you ask what they do, turns out they are a creator, working on some interesting media project. However, when you see a Linux user on the train - which happens approximately 2.78% of the time - and you talk them, there is like a 10 to 1 chance that they are doing something extremely cool. Make music, work on a short animated movie, do some color grading or work on gaming mods. I admit this is all anecdotal, but I meet a lot of people so for me my educated guess on the market is more like so, very rough rounded subjective numbers so I can estimate: Desktop OS Market Creators Share Weighed ---------- ------ -------- ----- ------- Windows 80% 10% 8% 45% Mac OS 17.5% 40% 7% 40% Linux 2.5% 90% 2.25% 15% ----- + 100% The pickiness, refined opinion and philosophy that characterize Linux users will lead others to believe they are zealots - After all, Apple markets scarcity of choice because they target an audience that prefers it, while Linux is popularized by their abundance of choice, so naturally these people won't easily see eye to eye - but I know that sketching Linux users as zero-creative freeloaders is not a fair generalization. I would guesstimate on the opposite. Referencing the guesstimated numbers above, if you humor me and see it could be plausible, here is the extra bacon: Windows and MacOS market are saturated. You need to steal market share from some other software. On Linux you'd be the first. There are no quality competitors. Yet. The creative market share is smaller, but the share is there for the grabbing. You don't have to fight for it. The users are begging you to sell them something.

Effort would be hired with money gathered from a crowd-campaign and pre-orders. So no.

I believe the question is valid, but this answer is your guess. It literally hasn't been explored yet. Affinity has said that it is possible and they can do it and it would be interesting if the $500,000 point would be reached. But when we were "going to find out" through crowd campaign, they thought about it and decided did not want to do it, but rather keep the team as it is. Maybe in the future, but not in the near future. It does not mean there is no market. It means it was not within their vision. I think we can safely say there is a lot of professional creative users on Linux. I know there are commercial audio production and DAW software with Linux versions. I don't know a lot of them because it's not my area, but there's Tracktion (added Linux support since version 4) and Harrison Mixbus. For cartoons there are some commercial options. I guess TVPaint Animation Pro is the most famous. Then there is a lot of commercial video software, like LightWorks, DaVinci Resolve, Blackmagic Fusion, Nuke and the Autodesk series (flint/smoke/fire/inferno). And finally the heavy stuff not for the small business or hobbyist, like Houdini, MASSIVE, and Maya). Competition is strong, even with the high quality FOSS alternative Blender. The only thing that just isn't there is quality Photo and Vector editing software. I don't think the aforementioned anecdotal evidence subscribes to the idea of lack of creative market on Linux. It can be interesting for multiple reasons. Unexpected market due to being the first. I just think that you're underestimating the market. I accept that you think that I am overestimating the market. But the thing is, we both don't know. Just saying there is or is not a market is an argument without value to the other side, so I think the market discussion is exhausted after 17 pages of repeating ourselves to each other.

You are correct that the Linux market share is the smallest. Looking at the numbers from december last year, Linux has a desktop market share of 2.78%. It's a fraction. However, if you compare it to the MacOS desktop market share of december last year, you see that it is 10.65%. So if MacOS is an interesting market, just be advised that Linux is ~25% their size. Now it's no longer a fraction. It's a quarter. Besides, I believe the Affinity team has explained that their products consist of one bigger easily portable multi-platform "server" component, and one smaller platform-specific GUI/UX component. Only the latter would need to be ported. They roughly estimated that developing the GUI/UX component for Linux would cost $500,000. When a more serious initiative was started to crowdsource these funds, Affinity decided that they did not want to grow the team for that purpose, but rather focus on the two GUI/UX components they are developing right now (for Windows/OSX). This is a choice and their prerogative, but it was not stated or insinuated that it was because of money. Corel AfterShot Pro had the same choice. Starting from Corel AfterShot Pro 2, they did port their software to Linux. AfterShot Pro 3 is available for two distro's (rpm based and deb based). I don't know if people from the industry ever run into each other, but perhaps Affinity can ask some Corel folks if it was a good, bad or neutral move, and if they sold more than 3 copies.

This is an argument of infinite regress and doesn't tell us anything. In layman's terms: The chicken or the egg story. This is irrelevant. Team wanted to earn $500,000+. Crowdfund plans were made to raise $500,000+ by people who were confident it could be done. Then the team said never mind, we changed our minds.

@chakko007 since this thread "Affinity for Linux" is not locked down by the Affinity team, we are free to discuss Affinity for Linux. This includes target distro's, packaging, commercial store platform, sources of help and commercial support and even (in)compatibilities with WINE. This way, if Affinity at some point in the future decides to revisit the idea, this thread would be a portfolio of information from Linux users who actually know things like SnapCraft, AppImage, FlatPack, Advanced Package Manager, commercial software on Linux, Canonical commercial support etc. The only weird thing is that some users (including yourself) keep responding to everything with some variation of "The developers said NO so stop discussing it." It's a bit ridiculous that we are being censored from discussing this any further. I mean what makes them so fanatic in their mission to stop this thread? Are they personally hurt by it? Are they afraid Affinity might change their mind? Why does it worry them? Are they feeling threatened by the idea that some day Affinity might want to reconsider? Why? What is threatening about it? Why do they care? Why not leave this topic alone if they are not going to contribute something new or interesting? It doesn't concern you. It's good to commit interesting points of view and arguments, but there is no rational contribution other than repeating again and again "DEVS SAID NO, PERIOD". So yes, I am being very serious when to me it's starting to look like Scott versus Dr. Evil, because every time Scott wants to make a rational point, Dr. Evil stops him from making it. I think you've got that backwards. They wanted to set up a crowdfunding campaign to see if it would be possible, and then the response was: "Even if you get the required $500,000, we are probably not going to develop a Linux version." So the crowdfund campaign was not started, and again we won't get the chance to find out. The thing is, you think you know the market and we think we know the market. Everything is just underbelly feelings up to this point. But the benefit of the doubt definitely goes to the people who are in the market being discussed.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Generally speaking, Linux users know what's going on and are better equipped to speculate on the market simply because it's relevant to their interests. Others may be a bit more oblivious to the workings because they simply buy a product and don't care that much else. For Apple it's half their business model to keep everything exclusive. Or move things that way. Like that time they purchased popular on linux compositing software Shake and made it 10 times cheaper on Apple products, integrated into Final Cut and discontinued the multi platform version. Microsoft similarly pays for exclusivity every now and then, but most particularly on games. Remember when PUBG became popular? Microsoft quickly purchased the exclusive rights to distribute. In the past they paid sums in the order of $50 million per year of exclusivity (see GTA episodes). Speculating MS might have paid some "change" for Affinity's exclusivity is not tinfoil hat type speculation. It's plausible, and such speculation emerges when devs are requesting information on a target platform/distro/packaging/store, and once someone is giving a detailed answer, they say "never mind we are not doing this". This behavior might be MS' last attempts at making things profitable. Because XBOX never made a profit. Most growing profit comes from Azure. After years of aggressive and at times comedic denial of Linux potential similar to some posts on these forums, even Microsoft is now embracing those "zealots". They paid billions for those "zealots". If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Microsft Azure Sphere OS is going to be based on Linux. I won't be surprised if Microsoft's main Windows OS will be Linux-based in 10 years.

I wonder if Microsoft paid Affinity $500,000 to not make a Linux version. For a lot of people, Windows is literally one piece of software away from being irrelevant.

@SrPx just because I didn't know it was relevant, I would like to emphasize that I am a license owner too. I'm guessing most Linux users here are, and they are either frustrated with dual booting or stopped dual booting altogether and are frustrated that the software won't even run a bit on WINE. Yes, my Affinity licenses are gathering dust. I purchased immediately when the Windows version came out as an "encouragement purchase" - secretly hoping/gambling that it would work on a more or lesser extend on WINE. Didn't expect it to run not at all. Not even the installer.

@chakko007 @j0e.org I think the Linux folk around here are problem solvers and probably know the market better because of their network of Linux using professionals who are all searching for the same solution. At the same time, Windows users here are unbelievably fierce in wanting to have the last word with their unconstructive campaign of repeating a clear "NO" embedded in a nice warm lack of arguments while simultaneously pretending they don't care. I don't quite understand what motivates them so religiously in their calling to stifle any discussion and wishful arguments among Linux users. It's like Scott (Linux user) versus Dr. Evil (Windows user).

Still haven't heard from Serif if they know or are willing to investigate the dependencies in the Windows version that cause WINE to choke. So while I'm not sure if it's about a trivial thing or half the software, perhaps they are willing to work towards WINE compatibility (for a price).

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.

"maybe the Windows Subsystem for Linux helps?"

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...

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.

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!

I accept that

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.

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.

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.