Diego Duarte

Some time ago I saw a post here on the forum asking about a linux port of Photo, someone responded as being one of the devs, I don't know if he was one of them or not. He said that it would cost 500k to port it, and it wouldn't compensate because of the small linux user base, my argument is that: Although the Linux user base is smaller than Windows, Affinity Photo would become the primary option to linux users all over the world, and potentially impulse others to migrate do linux knowing that they wouldn't need to rely on Wine to use photoshop, because of a better option being Affinity Photo and Design. To emphasize this point, Photoshop reigns supreme on Windows and Affinity is currently the underdog, on Linux this wouldn't be the case, Gimp exist, yes, but it not at the same level as professional applications on windows and mac. I think I expressed myself correctly and transmited my argument in a constructive way. BIG PS: If the counter-argument its about what distro to use and how to deliver the software: You could stick with Ubuntu and use Snappy or Flatpak wrappers to distribute the program. In short, those two methods are like how apps are wrapped on android, not exactly like, but comparable, it wrap the software and all his necessary libraries and deliver it to the user packed up, they can even sandbox the software to run on a higher level of security, both are really similar. Snaps it's the model created by Ubuntu's parent company Canonical, and Flatpaks is the model patrocinated by RedHat. Both work on Ubuntu, but snaps is out of the box, and Flatpak needs to be installed by the user in this distro, so I think snaps are more attractive to my argument.