Snapseed

Sure, your reasons for choosing Linux are sensible and I'm not disputing any of them (and defending Windows is the last hill I'd die on ). I even respect that you put your money where your mouth is (well, Linux is free, but you still have to accept a slight-to-moderate amount of inconvenience in order to stick to your principles). That's the only way for Linux, really - its userbase needs to grow despite the lack of software support and only then the commercial apps will come. It's more people like you that would make that happen. However, port begging for-profit companies is not the solution. It's a misguided, if well-meaning, attempt to alter the market perception. You saying that you want something doesn't show demand at a useful scale. You can't possibly know how much demand there is, nor do you understand how much demand Serif actually needs. Yet you project an absolute conviction that a Linux port is a good idea and can't possibly harm them. Do keep in mind, this is not a feature request - you are asking for a lot here. And fact is, you are one person. You are not providing useful/actionable information about demand. What you are doing is trying to skew perception.
I think a lot of this comes down to you being in VFX. That industry is an outlier, as there is a huge overlap between Linux "nerds" and VFX artists (I guess it comes with computer literacy?). Companies like Foundry are not targeting broad and general markets, they know the type of studios they sell to, so having a Linux version is a no-brainer. That's if the software wasn't actually developed on Linux in the first place, which is often the case with VFX apps. But it's not the case in most other markets. 
How much effort and money a Linux port requires varies vastly between apps. We are all well aware that there are platform-agnostic options that make porting trivial. This does not matter for software that isn't already built upon such a foundation. Affinity (and DxO for that matter) run native interfaces, which is to say they have basically built the entire UI two times over. A linux port would mean a new version (and also diverging support for that version in the future, indefinitely). Do you have any idea how much dev time this takes? I know it sounds kinda silly that the UI should be one of the main hurdles in porting, but it absolutely is. Consequently, this:
is wrong. It is already too late for Affinity to become effortlessly cross-platform. The amount of work on a Linux port would probably be comparable to the Windows one. And for how much of the market? The point is, you don't seem to understand how much you're asking for here and are consequently bugging the wrong company. Concentrate on cases where a Linux version is actually viable. This means one of two things: 1) Platform agnostic foundation - a Linux port would be trivial 2) A large corporate behemoth that can spare the resources on a non-trivial port without significant repercussions. Affinity is neither of those things. (Adobe was just an example of the latter. Otherwise, we agree that their rental model is a non-starter and the software itself is only getting increasingly slower and less stable over time, so wouldn't be very desirable even at a reasonable one time fee. That doesn't make Affinity on Linux any more viable than it is, however. You should pick a better target for your bugging).

part of the reason I use linux actually is that Blender runs faster (by a substantial amount) and Houdini+blender is part of my vfx workflow. As I do videogame VFX I'm not in need of adobe products to do any of my VFX thankfully, which is also part of the reason I can use Linux as it doesn't have a massive impact on me that adobe chooses not to support this platform.

I wouldn't say it's not a viable market though, if anything I would much rather have just one OS to rule them all. Surely it says something that VFX peeps use linux and windows... if windows were that one OS to rule them all then they wouldn't use linux in the first place. 

As Guernseyman pointed out though Linux is not without flaws and you can sometimes go down a rabbit hole of endless tinkering (which is nice that you can, but annoying that you sometimes have to). Some distros are made to just work out of the box like ZorinOS, which is stable, polished and comes with a bunch of bloat applications out of the box so you can just get started. I had to distro hop for a year to figure out which distro I wanted to stick with and that can be a problem in that its confusing and not straight forward as a platform off the bat, however since all distros can kinda do the same things it's a non issue once you realise. For example you could install endeavour, zorin, pop, fedora, manjaro etc etc etc and they all have that same version of discord, blender and other applications that work on all distros. Once I kinda felt this to be the case I could settle on one and get work done just like Windows and Mac. No need for that endless tinkering. ^^

I think once people pass that mental hurdle that linux is just endless tinkering and distro hopping and realise it's just another set of OS's that do the same things it becomes clear that Linux can compete just fine with Windows and Mac as a marketplace for consumers, hobbyists and professionals.

Anyways what OS isn't without problems... you have to use commandline just to uninstall a browser on Windows which I wouldn't call very user friendly/simple and MacOS almost suffers from the same problem linux does, a lack of software support (granted, it's better on Mac but it's still an issue compared to windows which runs everything) and fewer users than windows by far.

No clue why there's any argument over asking Affinity to provide native export for webp? 
If you don't care for it, don't use it? Totally on board with the Google hate - but... it's definitely the best format for my needs? 
In the meantime, the free version of PhotoScape X is the best tool I've found: 
http://x.photoscape.org
You can set the compression level, see the results of the compression level as you adjust - which, if you're exporting for the web, is pretty sweet. 

there you go again, there is 1. Everyone uses windows why use anything else.

you're tiresome trolling is getting really old

Do you know that the vfx industry is using Linux as their main platform? Because of this they have a separate machine to run software that doesn't run on Linux. And thanks to Adobe's acquisition of Allegorithmic now they have to pay extra dollars to get the linux version of the Substance software (3D Texturing Tool). Just my 2 cents about Linux not being a viable market.

These are fair points. When I say "correct" what I mean is a project from the start would be coded to be as agnostic as possible which they've done to an extent. And yes other companies have major cash income to be able to throw at a project like SteamOS, however you'd think they wouldn't have done that if they thought linux wasn't a worth while endeavour.

As for promoting other products, I don't know, people here are really suggesting different products that are on Linux so it's really not competing with Affinity if they have no intentions of coming to the platform but yes, it's bad form. I for one am not trying to drive anyone away from affinity. Affinity suite is barely used by the masses and I believe it to be the better option going forward instead of photoshop (much like I feel linux is the better platform going forward) so I'd only ever recommend Affinity unless people uise Linux. I say it's a shame because the paring of Affinity Suite and Linux would be a power play on Serifs part.

@MattyWS, @Pšenda...
This thread is a Pinned Thread. This can only be done by Serif staff.
I think there is at least one good reason why it is a pinned thread--if for no other reason than to keep the discussion in single place. 
But MattyWS is correct, why not just avoid posting here? It is a legitimate topic.

I disagree with a couple of your points. This is a topic about affinity photo potentially being for linux so of course people will talk about it the topic. It's not toxic to keep on-topic. It's far more toxic to go into someones request thread and say how they don't want the request because it's not relevant to them. I'd be like me going into a thread about mac support and saying "barely anyone uses mac, Serif shouldn't waste their money on supporting you, all their money should be used to develop their products on windows where I use affinity suite". Kinda silly to do this, right? If you aren't interested in a request the best thing to do is to just not comment and the literal worst thing you can do is trash the request *because* it's not relevant to you, which is exactly what a certain someone has been doing in here.

To your other point, why don't we discuss the linux/affinity topic on linux forums? What would that achieve really? We'd be having the same conversation but with more linux users and no affinity devs eyes on it. We *want* Serif to see this topic, we want a discussion on why this would be a good request. There's really no harm in anyone continuing this discussion. Though like I said I'm under no illusion Serif will act on any of this so even though I own the affinity suite on Windows and iPadOS, I can't use the windows version anymore. Sad times, as affinity designer would also be an amazing addition to linux (I use designer way more than I use photo).

Anyways if not Serif, I hope at least one company prevails and does the correct thing in supporting all three main desktop OS's. There maybe less stats on who uses linux since by it's very nature, linux distros tend not to collect data on it's users. I imagine there are a lot more than the stats are suggesting, especially when you consider entire cities and country governments are switching to linux and the largest games distributor is banking on linux so it's certainly becoming more the norm these days, even if its mostly governments switching en masse for the moment (I think governments being on linux will only help normalize it). I'll try not to get too political but countries like Russia being sanctioned and unable to acquire windowsOS or macs is also a sure reason for software devs to start supporting the OS people can actually use freely, which is why I happen to use Linux now even as a professional game developer. I've found it a positive experience so far, basically all the software I need is supported. Houdini, Unity, Unreal, Blender, World machine, Substance Suite.. I'm all good on linux apart from a decent photo/vector editor, which I *can* live without even if I don't want to.

If you disagree with my points here I'd love to engage in a constructive discussion as to why. Obviously not everyone uses linux but I feel like the "I don't use it so it's a waste of devs money to support it" is a non-argument and non-constructive to this discussion.

❤️@TonyB Great news! Thank you for officially confirming this. It's a lot of reassurance for us scripting people to know it's on the horizon, even if it takes a lot of waiting.
Good move on JS support IMHO, as it onboards the existing Adobe scripters with the necessary DTP expertise, and a lot of the frontend guys.

We will support a very limited set of platform specific automation functions with one of those exposed functions being able to pass a Javascript snippet that will then have full access to Affinity. 
Hope that makes sense.

That's good enough for me. Much the same way it was done in InDesign.
Since Javascript reads and writes text files, for those that can stand using a conversion-to-txt stage, excel, filemaker and others would still be available the old fashioned way.
 
That's really great if that works  Would make it worth it learning either the one or the other for me. 

Thank you programmers, thank you for the update @TonyB!

While not ideal, these changes that temporarily break software or your workflow tend to happen everywhere, not only in Linux. Apple on MacOS broke a lot of perfectly good programs with their yet another shift to different architecture and not supporting OpenGL anymore.
And Microsoft slowly makes Windows a nightmare for any serious professional work. Sure, the programs are running on it fine but the OS is spying on you, forces you to update even if it breaks things and MS can change anything with the next coming update. You never know what is going to happen. This is in my opinion a horrible working environment. It is not your computer anymore. A lot of people deal with it only because of software compatibility, there is no alternative for certain software or games.
Linux is definitely not perfect (and I myself criticize a lot of things about it) but this issue with Wayland is hardly a typical "problem with Linux". This is a problem with almost every OS or technology at one point.
What surprises me a bit is the hostility from quite a few users against the Linux port. I get it, if you don't use Linux you don't want Serif "wasting" money on the development. But I still think Linux port would be beneficial even for you in the long run. Windows is probably on its way to become full-on Software-As-A-Service with all of the bad things that it brings. Lots of users are here because they got fed up with Adobe's SAAS model. When and if Windows becomes exactly that, what are you going to do? Wouldn't you be glad for an Affinity Linux port (already being developed and ready to go)?

If you just want to review RAW photos quickly, FastRawViewer is the go.
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/

I have neofinder, it is very nice...

Agreed and you raise another good point I did not above, the equation may be different if you're a pro photographer.  I'm not, nor do I intend to be, so for me the way I weigh it up is different to those that are.

I chose to go with C1 because IMHO the raw engine is much better than Adobe's and I prefer AP to PS.  But to your point I pay a premium for using C1 instead of LR.
As primarily a photographer, I am keenly aware of the library features of both LR and C1.  An application such as PS or AP is not useful for a high volume photographer, you have to have the basic DAM functionality of LR or C1 (et al).  I think most photographers are also very much aware of this.
I am not sure why Serif has not created "Affinity Develop" to compete with the other RAW developers out there (the RAW developer functionality is already present in AP, write a DAM already!!!).  But that in my opinion is the huge factor in photographers not switching to Affinity apps.
If C1 keeps raising prices like that are then I might head back to Adobe...  Then PS would also replace AP on my machine.
Edit:
As an aside, I don't think Serif has any intention of releasing a LR/C1 competitor.  It is a glaring hole in their lineup and should have been released concurrent with Affinity Photo.  There is some strategic reason for not competing heads up with Adobe that we are not seeing.  Very unfortunate...
 

Yeah, I looked at all the examples given to me in this thread and a few others, downloading them all to try out and for my need there really doesn't exist a solution today.  Some people will argue with that but my justification is as follows: there is always something major wrong or missing.  The best is still Exposure, but it's very slow and therefore also is not a good fit given the primary task is to be able to quickly dive in and filter, sort and scroll hundreds of thousands of images.  The rest are either the same or have something else wrong, the better ones that come close to Lightroom are just too expensive (and surprisingly not just a little bit more expensive, a lot more expensive).  It is not a solution to want to leave Lightroom to get away from  the cost of a subscription to then end up with an even more expensive product.  And these surprisingly expensive products were only replacing half of the suite that you get with adobe lightoom portion only not photoshop.  So either the Adobe photography plan is a very good deal or the other products are very expensive.  You choose.
For these reasons there is still not a decent replacement for Lightroom available in the market today unless you want to pay more than the Lightroom bundle.  I'd challenge anyone who said there was to explain (I'm interested, but am jaded by what I've seen so far).  I'd pay more if it was a one off cost of course, but again the example shown for a one off cost, was not actually a one off cost.  It was a one off cost until the next version came out and was still more expensive than the adobe plan as well.
There really is an opportunity here for affinity to add this to their portfolio of apps.  I think the problem is that many people don't understand the market positioning - even my cousin a pro photographer didn't know why he needed Lightroom.  When you look at the above apps that are shown, a general trend of all of them was to market their photo editing features, I don't think any of them marketed their library management features.  It's surprising because the amount of photo's being taken these days is insane and you'd think some product owner / manager somewhere would recognise this as the opportunity that it is.  I could think of a lot of things to do using A.I and such to sort your photos so that they can easily be found.  Integrations with desktop apps to include e.g. Apple photos push / pull / library sync, scene recognition, etc etc.  Hopefully one of them reads this.

Sorry to resurrect a nearly dormant thread, I think he wants what most of us want (wanted) a credible replacement for LR and C1.  So yes, a photo organizer and raw developer.  Everything is there on the developer side, Affinity Photo  has all the tools except an organizer...

Its still an issue, which would make the use of the programm so much nicer, as you can make so many different brushes, that it would be nice if you could name them rightfully and find them without hassle. I would be happy too if the name would just appear in the header if its not possible to make it in the brush pannel. (just in the settings of the Brush to see it when you choose the brush) 

I agree, when changing the size of a brush it's still the same brush, at least for the user, no matter what the app is thinking. And every other design and art app out there presents it in the same way.
Speaking of changing brush sizes, another of those low hanging fruits would be a brush size panel. Sometimes that just seems faster than using the size adjuster already in the app or using the dial on my pen tablet. It's an easy feature and it's pretty standard in competing software. 
Also adding the brush name in the history panel. Instead of "Paint Brush Tool" it would be something like "Paint Brush Tool: Chalky Brush 1" or something. Clip Studio Paint has that feature and it's great for remembering what brush you just tested out 3 brushes ago and want to go back to.
Just those 4 really easy features to add would enhance my experience with the program so much. Displaying the brush names in the brush panel on desktop, keeping the selected brush highlighted even when changing sizes, a brush size panel with different brush sizes already all laid out, and the brush name in the history panel. Super easy to add, super standard in design and art programs. And such a huge improvement to the brush experience. All without even touching the underlying brush engine. They're quick additions that add a ton of value. 

+1 for adding optional brush names to the brushes panel.
Also for still showing what brush is being used even if something like the size has been changed. 

I would love to see that too. I feel like there's a lot of low hanging fruit that Serif could pluck that would make the overall brush experience a lot more enjoyable without them even touching the bush engine. The lack of a few simple features is really making using brushes in Affinity a painful and annoying experience for me. 

Yeah, that's my fear as well. That it's not even that they haven't gotten around to it because of more important priorities, but it's just some guy in the UI department who decided it looked better more streamlined like that rather than be practical and useful about the matter.
If you can see the names in the panel you're registering those names each time you use the brush, you're gaining muscle memory about which brush does what as you use them. It's easy to find them again in the list as well. Hovering over the item just gets in the way and as something that gets in the way the user isn't going to do that, and so they don't build that muscle memory. In the end it's just a list of different squiggly lines which mean nothing to me. 
 

No, you appear rude in every single post you’ve made in this thread. The others are right, you are just being toxic and hateful toward a request that people want and you clearly don’t want. When large companies like Valve and Nvidia are supporting Linux as a desktop and gaming platform, you can pretty easily see there is in fact a market for it.
I don’t even know why you’re still posting here, the only thing I can think of is you’re a Linux user that likes using a niche OS and don’t want it to get popular like some kind of hipster… or maybe you’re just a troll who never even touched Linux in the last decade. Either one is toxic.

My solution is opening my PDF file into Acrobat Pro and use Output Preview. But I still need Adobe Acrobat. It's the best way to validate Overprints, true 100% Black (and not CMYK composition)