Medical Officer Bones

Perhaps try Gravit instead? https://gravit.io
 
The tools are quite good. Inspired by the old Freehand. Runs in the browser, so works on a Chromebook.
 
If you need an inexpensive solution with access to pretty good design software on the road, you could also install Linux on a Chromebook as dual boot, and run Inkscape, Krita, Scribus, and so on. http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/how-to-run-linux-on-a-chromebook-1785016045

1-bit mode would be very welcomed.
 
The only image editor that I am aware of that supports 1bit layers with high PPI resolutions and allows these to be combined with 300ppi colour ones in the same layer stack is PhotoLine.
 
Crossing my fingers for Photo's next version that will hopefully support 1bit properly.

The new version of Resolve (14 - they skipped "unlucky" 13!) is rewritten from scratch, and performance is supposed to be a ten-fold improvement. However, it is still in beta, and although the new version 14 can be downloaded now, it is still quite buggy. 
 
The new audio features sound very intriguing. Definitely going to be a force to be reckoned with now - the price of the pro version is decreased to $299 as well.

I wasn't advertising it: only mentioning an alternative that DOES work on Linux (and Chromebooks, for that matter). People here mention Photoshop, Illustrator, Inkscape, Gimp, and other tools all the time as well when it makes sense to compare to Affinity, right?
 
This thread is about porting Affinity to Linux, which is (most probably) never going to happen, and since I also work on Linux machines, I am always on the lookout for promising alternative Linux graphics software. If Affinity Designer would be available for Linux, I wouldn't think twice of using THAT. But Affinity does not work on Linux, so any even remotely promising professional alternative for illustration work is very welcome on Linux in my book.
 
Look, this thread is already nine pages long, so that means there is some interest in the Linux community for good professional level illustration software. I was only "the bearer of good news" in that there is some positive development in that area.
 
I agree that Gravit isn't on the same level (yet) compared to Designer - the roadmap looks quite promising, though. I hope to be using it alongside Designer on my Windows machine.

1) export each element as a SVG from Designer
2) import each SVG element into Flash. You will have to convert the elements to graphic symbols and/or movieclips in Flash.
3) if animated elements are required, use the moviclips/graphic symbols to animate things. You may have to create additional nested movieclips to animate sub-elements, if needed.
4) hand final Flash file with animations to developer.
 
Don't forget to organize the assets nicely in Flash's library, of course. Confer with the developer whether he/she must have movieclips, graphic symbols, etc. to work with during development.
 
Most artists who I know work in a separate illustration tool, and import the static assets into Flash for animation, then hand over the file(s) to the developer.

1) export each element as a SVG from Designer
2) import each SVG element into Flash. You will have to convert the elements to graphic symbols and/or movieclips in Flash.
3) if animated elements are required, use the moviclips/graphic symbols to animate things. You may have to create additional nested movieclips to animate sub-elements, if needed.
4) hand final Flash file with animations to developer.
 
Don't forget to organize the assets nicely in Flash's library, of course. Confer with the developer whether he/she must have movieclips, graphic symbols, etc. to work with during development.
 
Most artists who I know work in a separate illustration tool, and import the static assets into Flash for animation, then hand over the file(s) to the developer.

Unsure... According to their roadmap it ought to be included before version 1.6 is released, I believe? I suppose 1.6 will be released sometime this year, and I'd be very surprised if non-destructive RAW editing would not be part of that update. It is one of the most requested things.
 
I think the devs are working on smart object like options that would integrate the non-destructive RAW feature as well.
 
But again, I am not privy to their internal development. Perhaps one of the devs might chime in here to elucidate further on this matter?

Off the top of my hat:
Affinity Photo misses:
- 3d features
- 3d printing features
- animation, timeline
- video timeline
- scripting
- 1bit and indexed bitmap support
 
The things missing for photography:
- smart objects and live smart filters (but Affinity Photo offers a wide range of non-destructive filters as well)
- non-destructive RAW editing (which is to be added in a future version)
- layer distortion (but a perspective filter is available)
- duotones, tritones, or hexachrome support (which may be important to professional photographers looking to print their work at a high quality)
- spot channels (which is forthcoming in a new version)
 
 
Having said this, 3d in Photoshop is pretty terrible (you're better off downloading the free and open source Blender that is by FAR superior in this regard), and if you need video/animation much better free and commercial software is available as well. I never used the ones built into Photoshop - far too limiting in my opinion.
 
Photoshop import is quite adequate, but understandably will always remain a hit and miss affair.
 
On the other hand, a number of features arguably work better than the equivalent ones in Photoshop: for example the layer masks, the fact that all transformations are by default non-destructive, advanced layer blending, a nice curve option for anti-aliasing, the grid, 360degree photo editing (still a bit limited, though), and the way many tools are implemented.
 
Roadmap: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/10075-affinity-photo-feature-roadmap

It's a bit unrealistic to expect one application to "do it all", and risking that the various components are lacking in comparison to specialist software. Xara and PhotoLine combine both vector and bitmap editing, but those miss other things again. No tool is perfect.
 
I do not paint in Photo or Designer or Photoshop - I prefer Krita and Clipstudio, because their primary focus is digital painting and sketching, and they do it way better than those three. I prefer Cinema4d and Blender for 3d work and lettering: even with Photoshop's 3d functions, I find Photoshop's 3d to be way too limited for usability, features, and output quality. If I need to do publishing, I prefer InDesign (although I hate the subscription).
 
The problem is also knowing where to stop: some people need a super chart tool, others responsive web mockup tools, and yet others again require perspective projection tools with z-channel support, or animation/video timelines. Where does it stop? To combine all of this into one application would cause bloat, and from a developer's point of view it becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 
In my opinion the trouble is that so many different users from widely different backgrounds expect a tool that does "everything". That is an unrealistic expectation. So much quality specialist software out there - Affinity should not be trying to reinvent the wheel, but improve the carriage that carries its users instead. Nor should a designer expect any single software app to "do it all".
 
Instead, improve file exchange abilities between software. Ideally an open design format that supports seamless collaboration between widely varying apps would be the holy (utopian) grail.

It's a bit unrealistic to expect one application to "do it all", and risking that the various components are lacking in comparison to specialist software. Xara and PhotoLine combine both vector and bitmap editing, but those miss other things again. No tool is perfect.
 
I do not paint in Photo or Designer or Photoshop - I prefer Krita and Clipstudio, because their primary focus is digital painting and sketching, and they do it way better than those three. I prefer Cinema4d and Blender for 3d work and lettering: even with Photoshop's 3d functions, I find Photoshop's 3d to be way too limited for usability, features, and output quality. If I need to do publishing, I prefer InDesign (although I hate the subscription).
 
The problem is also knowing where to stop: some people need a super chart tool, others responsive web mockup tools, and yet others again require perspective projection tools with z-channel support, or animation/video timelines. Where does it stop? To combine all of this into one application would cause bloat, and from a developer's point of view it becomes a nightmare to maintain.
 
In my opinion the trouble is that so many different users from widely different backgrounds expect a tool that does "everything". That is an unrealistic expectation. So much quality specialist software out there - Affinity should not be trying to reinvent the wheel, but improve the carriage that carries its users instead. Nor should a designer expect any single software app to "do it all".
 
Instead, improve file exchange abilities between software. Ideally an open design format that supports seamless collaboration between widely varying apps would be the holy (utopian) grail.

And don't forget that Fusion is also a free download, and available for Mac in case you need professional level compositing with animation and 3d integration.
 
Do realize that the free versions of both Resolve and Fusion have a limit of 4K (UHD) resolution. But that should not be an issue for anyone outside of professional circles.
 
It's amazing these tools are available for free.

A gradient will always cause banding if the two values are too close and the width of the element is too wide to accommodate a smooth transition.
 
The OP's gradient example must transition from [33,33,33] to [56,56,56] - a value shift of 23 over a width of about 480px---> each value shift takes up 21px. And that results in visible banding. Gdenby mentions that our eyes will notice the banding (more than a 0.05 value/intensity shift occurs).
 
Working in 16bpc often prevents this from occurring, but the end result generally must be converted to 8bit per channel. The only solution that works to mitigate these banding issues is to apply some dithering between steps or apply noise to the overall gradient in the 8bit version.
 
Here is an example of how dithering applied between each step considerably visually reduces the banding. Zoom in to make out the dithering. (do not attempt to view this file within the context of a white background - our eyes adjust to the white, and it is difficult to compare the two! Open in Photo instead)
 

 
And exacerbating the matter is banding caused by low-quality screens with a limited colour gamut.
 
When working with SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) the banding ought to be prevented by the browser's built-in dithering/anti-aliasing algorithms. Unfortunately, it depends on the browser and the operating system whether this actually is applied or not.
 
For example, the above gradient displays with bands in Firefox Developer for me, while it looks fine in both Opera and Chrome. (I am on Windows, btw.) I read that OSX may introduce bands in Chrome.
 
In a nutshell, SVG may not be the solution you are looking for if banding is to be avoided altogether - it depends on the OS and browser in my experience.

A gradient will always cause banding if the two values are too close and the width of the element is too wide to accommodate a smooth transition.
 
The OP's gradient example must transition from [33,33,33] to [56,56,56] - a value shift of 23 over a width of about 480px---> each value shift takes up 21px. And that results in visible banding. Gdenby mentions that our eyes will notice the banding (more than a 0.05 value/intensity shift occurs).
 
Working in 16bpc often prevents this from occurring, but the end result generally must be converted to 8bit per channel. The only solution that works to mitigate these banding issues is to apply some dithering between steps or apply noise to the overall gradient in the 8bit version.
 
Here is an example of how dithering applied between each step considerably visually reduces the banding. Zoom in to make out the dithering. (do not attempt to view this file within the context of a white background - our eyes adjust to the white, and it is difficult to compare the two! Open in Photo instead)
 

 
And exacerbating the matter is banding caused by low-quality screens with a limited colour gamut.
 
When working with SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) the banding ought to be prevented by the browser's built-in dithering/anti-aliasing algorithms. Unfortunately, it depends on the browser and the operating system whether this actually is applied or not.
 
For example, the above gradient displays with bands in Firefox Developer for me, while it looks fine in both Opera and Chrome. (I am on Windows, btw.) I read that OSX may introduce bands in Chrome.
 
In a nutshell, SVG may not be the solution you are looking for if banding is to be avoided altogether - it depends on the OS and browser in my experience.

Why not just prepare your frames in Designer/Photo, and import into Krita? Krita has excellent stop-frame animation. And works without problems on Macs now.