D’T4ils

How stupid is not developing affinity on linux, u have like no competition on linux.. it would gain status like photoshop gained many many years ago... how they can not see this as opurtinity. i can even pay double or tripple the price for linux version it that is requiered. But really make it run... and also... ARM chips are the future.. and linux is the only currently really good system that works on that platform. apart from iOS.

Just because there is no affinity on linux i need to buy separate, SSD, + windows. just to use affinity or adobe programs. That is how much value we spend just to get that app.. i am 100% sure... linux users can spend 200-300$ on affinity, and CG/ART studio even more.
 

I love to see that so many people is interested in having this actually happening 
Just like a lot of you have stated, the only thing keeping me from permanently switching to Linux is the lack of Affinity software availability. As soon as that happens, bye-bye Windows!
I'm definitely cheering for this to become a reality

Hey guys, I'm a Junior Game Environment artist and I really don't see why this hasn't happened till now. You just need to put up a page saying the amount of money needed the port Affinity to Linux. I'm an Arch Linux user and I love using Linux a million times more than Windows. I honestly don't see how any Linux lover won't want to pay ONCE for Photo and Designer. I know for a fact that so many Windows users will switch to Linux after Affinity drops.
Right now, us 3D artists are bound to use Windows for our work, when we know that Linux is so much more performant. Blender3D is now gaining a lot of popularity in 2019 and this means a lot. You can see that just the fact that more people are switching to Blender has gotten them more financial aid in just two years of the Blender 2.8 project. As more and more people are trying to free themselves from Autodesk for Blender, others are trying to leave Adobe for Affinity. It might seem one-sided here, but I'm really loving the idea of a future when I can use Blender, Affinity Photo and Designer, Unreal Engine, Substance Painter, Designer, and Alchemist, PureRef and XNormal for game development.
I get that it will cost a ton to make this happen. If you can't port it without financial aid, all you need do is put up a page about it and you'll see just how many people have been waiting for this. The community will spread the word is you take a step forward!

Agree. Linux has become a mature desktop alternative now. I have myself moved completely away from Windows. The only thing I am missing is a good photoshop alternative. Honestly, that's the ONLY thing now after one year of using only linux and I do love Affinity. I've bought it for Windows (RIP) and iOS. And I'll gladly pay again to get them on Linux.
A good approach would be to use the snapcraft package system. That allows companies such as Microsoft, Jetbrains and SERIF to deploy their proprietary software across all linux distros with automatic updates. And it's extremely easy for the end users! 

I'm quite glad to see that they actually listen to our suggestions  Hope we can continue working together to make Affinity what she deserves to be.

Maybe it's a correction software-wise, which I can appreciate. But a very bad decision regarding the UI.
Sure. Main monitor 2560 x 1080 @ 96 dpi, an auxiliary one 1366 x 768 @ 96 dpi. Windows is at 100%. Here's a screenshot. If anyone pays close attention it is easy to see how many different font sizes and variants you use in the Layers panel at the same time.

The smaller ones are pretty to read here (of course we are out of context), but a pain to use everyday. Let me also remind you that on an ultrawide monitor the layer panel may be quite far away from the work area.
I don't think forcing anyone to change the whole Windows UI for just one application is a good idea.

Couldn't agree more with you both, @dok @rubs. It honestly scares me a little bit to see that this is how they handle issues that should be address in a short time. I was able to solve it using regular circles to replace the ones that were distorted, but with a more complex design I would have no choice but to use a different software. And to see how many resources and effort they are putting on developing the iPad version is not encouraging at all. I've got the impression they are leaving us aside  (at least for the moment).

Well this is really really annoying
There is no offset tool, yet we can't use Expand stroke as a work around because it's broken
Development is very much aware of the issue, ok, and we yet don't know when this will be fixed, if it will ever be fixed and not even if someone is working on it. 
 
 

Yes, Serif's feedback about software development is quite sparse. They must have some strong internal policy about this. I'm sure making things more transparent would benefit everyone.

Couldn't agree more with you both, @dok @rubs. It honestly scares me a little bit to see that this is how they handle issues that should be address in a short time. I was able to solve it using regular circles to replace the ones that were distorted, but with a more complex design I would have no choice but to use a different software. And to see how many resources and effort they are putting on developing the iPad version is not encouraging at all. I've got the impression they are leaving us aside  (at least for the moment).

.... for more than 3years.....

... sorry Sean P, couldnt resist....
 

I was working on a very simple design with the pen tool. I got to the point where I needed to expand the strokes of those paths, and I ended up getting a very unexpected result. Even though they are very simple shapes, the curves got distorted after being expanded.
I tested this with Designer 1.6.5.135 as well as the latest beta release.
I've attached a couple of PNGs illustrating the issue and the file I was working on so you can take a better look at it.


expand strokes.afdesign

I was working on a very simple design with the pen tool. I got to the point where I needed to expand the strokes of those paths, and I ended up getting a very unexpected result. Even though they are very simple shapes, the curves got distorted after being expanded.
I tested this with Designer 1.6.5.135 as well as the latest beta release.
I've attached a couple of PNGs illustrating the issue and the file I was working on so you can take a better look at it.


expand strokes.afdesign

I was working on a very simple design with the pen tool. I got to the point where I needed to expand the strokes of those paths, and I ended up getting a very unexpected result. Even though they are very simple shapes, the curves got distorted after being expanded.
I tested this with Designer 1.6.5.135 as well as the latest beta release.
I've attached a couple of PNGs illustrating the issue and the file I was working on so you can take a better look at it.


expand strokes.afdesign

I know it's a long, heated discussion, but I have to agree with the OP. The icons are more like mini illustrations. I stare at them interpreting what they represent. Icons should be symbolic and immediately identifiable which I believe they are currently not.
 
The monochrome option doesn't solve the problem. In fact, I find it even worse – they actually need their color to be better recognized. When I design a company logo, I start on paper in black and white using a thick, clumsy marker knowing that I can always add color & detail later, but I can't always remove them. These tool icons feel like "show-n-tell" illustrations rather than universally recognized, iconic, symbols.
 
RonnyB created a sample set of flat, B&W icons and posted them here:  
They are phenomenal and exactly what I expect from a professional-grade application like Affinity's suite.
 
And to all those who say the features are more important that the interface, I have to say they need to go hand in hand. This is a basic principle of professional graphic design and the heart of marketing. When I launched both Affinity applications for the first time, I immediately created an initial impression on whether this was going to be a pro tool or a prosumer substitute. The illustrative tools told me prosumer, my efforts to drop Adobe made me stick around and dig deeper into the actual workings of the software.
 
Most of us using these apps are employed in some form of design or marketing. To say that the appearance of the software's interface is irrelevant, is a rejection of the core values of our industries and ourselves.
 
 

So, you mean something like what Serif did for the icons on the iPad:
 
 

 
It would be nice, but in my case, the current colorful icons don't distract nor bother me.
 
Best regards!