Search the Community

Windows had a POSIX environment at one time but that is long gone. I would agree that Linux is generally inferior to many true UNIX platforms in some ways (superior in others depending on the specific UNIIX platform being compared to), but I strongly disagree with your assessment that it is not superior to Windows. A few examples for just about any use case: Windows is a Microsoft product. That alone is enough to make it inferior in my book. Current versions of Windows 11 make it nearly impossible to set up a new personal computer without associating the computer with a Microsoft account, tying you to their cloud services, even if you have no intention of ever using them. About the only way to get around it is to use various tricks to make sure the computer never sees the internet until after you are able to set up a local account - and even then you may need the "magic words" to include during installation... This is a serious problem and they seem to be doubling down on it, making it harder and harder to set up a standalone environment which is not connected to their cloud services. System requirements for new Windows versions tend to rise faster than system requirements for new Linux versions, requiring hardware to be replaced more often than might otherwise be necessary in order to remain current. For desktop use: The lower desktop market percentage of Linux means that it is less heavily targeted by the authors of malware, reducing the chance of being directly impacted by bad actors who are operating at scale. Windows includes an "AI assistant" named after a game character who went insane and wiped out the populations of entire planets. The security of current implementations of such "AI assistants" is highly questionable in general, regardless of the naming connotations. This "assistant" is enabled by default, along with other highly questionable features which probably shouldn't be provided at all, much less be turned on by default. For server or embedded use (not all of which is in life-sustaining or life-threatening equipment): Linux can run quite reasonably on a server without wasting the resources needed to maintain a graphical interface. For server use (and for basic embedded use, not all cases of which are in life-sustaining or life-threatening equipment) this allows it to make more efficient use of available resources. The free nature of Linux makes it more practical to use it in virtualized and clustered environments where many licenses are needed and cost is a factor as if service agreements/contracts are not required it is not necessary to track or pay for licensing; a Linux setup can simply be duplicated and used at scale. This is also important for embedded use cases as the licensing costs of commercial products may otherwise factor into the eventual price of the product.

You are correct, and I Was not using the steam market as an example. The total Linux desktop market is estimated at about 4% of the desktop/laptop market. However, due to the religion involved with Linux/FOSS many of that 4% will not use ANY payware/commercial software. Also the number that would want infinity products and would pay for them, you are back down to 1-2% Then you have the problems of the vast number of different Linux distros and that FlatPak isn't the answer, apparently. So you are likely to find that should Affinity do a Linux version, it will be for one and only one Linux distro. Making the market far to small to even consider commercially. BTW I do know a specialist SW supplier who does a Windows, Mac and Linux version. The Linux version cost 10% more than the other two to cover the additional support costs they get. The thing is due to the religion surrounding Linux the small number of users are very vocal compared to the 96% of the market that are Windows and Mac users. (OK the MAC users tend to have a touch of superiority 🙂 ) But on the whole 96% of the market just gets on with it. There is no commercial justification for a Linux version of Affinity. The Linux infrastructure would have to change a lot before there was any justification.

As a matter of disclaimer, I am primarily a Mac user. I also use Windows (ugh) and Linux. I keep an eye on Linux for a possible future switch to making it my primary system because I don't like the way Apple and Microsoft have been trending with taking away more and more control of your own computer and requiring accounts, or at least making it difficult to install an operating system without having an account on their system and whatnot. Plus, as a Mac user since System 7, I have seen the Mac user experience decline over the years. It is no longer the intuitive and easy to use operating system it used to be. And Windows still stinks. So, despite whatever shortcomings it may have, at the moment, Linux appears to be the only viable alternative to the Mac OS and Windows. I think the key is control, not necessarily ownership. If I have a license to use a particular application, I should be able to use it for as long as I have a compatible system that can run that software. I used to not like open source software and actively avoided it. Now, I lean towards it, not because it is typically free but because I know that, if I can install it on my system today, I will be able to install it on a similar system five, ten or even twenty years from now. Will I need it twenty years from now? Who knows? I might, especially if there are no other applications available in twenty years that can open its files. I have both the Affinity version 1 and version 2 application suites. I only use version 1. Why? Because of version 1's licensing process, no Internet activation is required to install and use the software. With version 2, there's an Internet activation scheme because they apparently need it for the iOS versions I don't have, use or care about. So, while I will be able to install version 1 on a compatible system in five, ten or twenty years, there is no guarantee I will be able to do the same with version 2 because who knows if Serif will still be around or their servers active or whatever. Bottom line is that I have a paid license with no guarantee I'll be able to activate it in the future. Just like Adobe, which I switched from because of their subscriptions and Internet activation nonsense. Given that, were Serif to release a Linux version of the application suite, I would not buy it if they required Internet activation. What percentage of Linux users would feel the same, I don't know. I don't mind paying for software and most of the software I use is commercial software, but I am opposed to paying for software that then limits whether or not I will actually be able to install and use the software based on whether or not the company keeps their servers active.

To a point perhaps - but there are problems with pursuing that as an end to itself. There are inherent differences between platforms which need to be catered to in order for an application to work well on that platform. Doing the minimal work to get something "working" on multiple platforms often means using toolkits that aim to abstract away the differences between the platforms so that an application can "just work" with minimal effort. This is a problem because they tend to aim for a least common denominator and often fail to leverage the benefits of using the different platforms, plus the user interface is never correct for all of them - just look at apps like Blender (which is the same on every platform because it essentially invents its own platform and runs it on top of the others, making it effectively wrong on every platform), FL Studio (which looks and acts like a Windoze app when running under macOS, even going so far as to implement something like an MDI-style interface - ick - which even most native Windoze apps have long since discontinued the use of), etc... In other words, using cross-platform development toolkits which make it feasible to maintain the application as working across a diverse range of platforms usually degrades the quality of the application on most if not all of the platforms in question. Even when using custom cross-platform frameworks created for a specific application, it is common to either aim for a least common denominator, or to make some additional platform "look like" the first one that the program was developed for - this is almost never a good plan. Consider how often it is pointed out that a desperately requested feature which the Affinity suite does NOT have already exists in GIMP, Inkscape, etc., but users steer away from using those apps because the overall quality of the interface seems better to them when they are using the Affinity apps. With the Affinity suite, Serif has built the UI separately using native toolkits on each platform, which gets much closer to being correct on each platform, and they still managed to mess some stuff up (like the missing proxy icons in the title bar that could be used to move the document from its window under macOS). Adding another platform and doing it well, even as well as the Affinity suite does, would mean adding yet another toolkit to the mix - a meaningful portion of the application would need to be rewritten yet again. This would either mean hiring more developers to handle the native port under Linux, or taking up time that could otherwise be invested in feature improvements. After such a port was done, there would be an ongoing need to maintain the software on an additional platform for every new feature they introduce. They would also need to train their support team to handle the added platform, and possibly hire additional support agents. The ongoing cost to them to do this well is higher than I think most people here are prepared to acknowledge. I for one would much rather use an application which is native to the platform I am using and follows its conventions correctly while providing the features that I want, than a more feature-heavy application which uses a cross-platform toolkit and sticks out like a sore thumb, failing to integrate well with and conform to the look and feel of the rest of the environment. I would also prefer that development time be invested in improving the functionality and stability of said application, than in maintaining it across platforms I don't use or particularly care about. If Serif has the resources to hire new developers to maintain a separate Linux version of the apps without impacting development on the existing platforms, great - more power to them. I wouldn't care as much either if they replaced the Windows version with a Linux version, so that they are still maintaining the same number of platforms, and choosing the better platforms to continue supporting. Otherwise a more practical approach would be to make what changes are needed to the Windows version so that it at least functions under Wine. Even if Serif does not want to support it under Linux, getting it to work in Wine would probably be a smaller effort that would enable Linux users to work with it on an "at your own risk - fix your own problems" basis. I don't see that happening - at least not intentionally - in the near future, but it is probably the one approach they could take without substantially increasing their costs.

This isn't really a concern. Sure the cost to port it initially will be high, but to maintain it alongside mac, windows and ipadOS afterwards will even out over time and they will get customers from linux coming in, which may be small to begin with but a fine investment. Also as I mentioned in my initial post, the distribution of cost didn't seem to affect other companies making software cross platform. Look at Unreal, Houdini, Unity, Blender, Maya. Completely free software like Godot and Gimp as well, why aren't they worried about "funds"? It's a poor excuse and a non issue when other companies seem to have no problem doing it IMO. If it makes you feel any better though I'd gladly pay 4-5x more for a linux version of the affinity suite, as others probably would. Because there is no competition, it would be amazing to have and well worth the money. I dunno where people get this idea that the tens of millions of people that daily drive linux wouldn't pay for software... The gaming market has already shown otherwise, Linux is now more profitable than Mac is for games, this alone would suggest linux users pay for stuff just fine.

I am not a Windows fan-boy. I am running Windows, OSX and Linux here. Along with a BSD Unix and I did have a machine running Solaris. Several RTOS and a Hypervisor that is cleared for DO178-C (Aerospace) use (unlike Linux) I have had many years working in software and hardware (but not IT) and as mentioned I have used analysis tools on Linux code. It is nowhere near as good as the Linux fan-boys think it is. It is easily corrupted with malware and back doors. Also it is not Open Source vs Closed Source. You get the source code for a lot of commercial software. Indeed it is required to have the source for some things. However 99% of Open Source is never tested to anything like the same standards as commercial software. In fact this is a major security problem with Linux. I know of two problems in Open Source that became well known and fixed in about 2 weeks. The problem was that I know at least 2 governments had known about them for 5 years at that point. Yes there are problems with Windows, though they did tighten up a couple of decades ago, but the problems are less easy to find and can only be inserted in one place IE at Microsoft. and of course MS would never put in anything the NSA asked them to..... But it is not like Open Source where it is still the wild west and almost anyone can patch the code.

Aye I agree the linux market share is tiny and possibly not many people on linux will buy serifs products yet, but I think there's two thoughts from me here; First, the investment into a very rapidly growing platform. Say what you will about 1% rise in a year it's still a lot of people (1% is ~80,000,000 of the world!) and it's fast growth for a platform that does no marketing. Getting into this now will ensure dominance on a potentially large userbase in the future. Second, I think it's just good practice to develop cross platform earlier rather than later. It'll only get harder to port to linux and android further down the line. Other companies have not had much of an issue supporting multiple platforms, and some extremely corperate companies have linux versions of their software so it can't be that financially stupid (look at Autodesk and SideFX for example).

Yes, I do although Linus designed and implemented the kernel -- not all of Linux -- but that's another point. But in a commercial context I don't doubt he's right. But in all fairness he's also highly opinionated and not shy about loading his commentary with shock value. 🙂 Just sayin'... It's highly dependent on the definition of "general desktop system". In the corporate / business world, he's probably right. But not on purely technical grounds so much as the lack of a controlling superior force (and even he, as BDFL, isn't that). There are technical standards and it is (or can be) pretty compliant technically, but there's no de facto GUI standard for all platforms -- despite Free Desktop, etc. Desktop management en masse would be a nightmare at a corporate level without serious constraints in place. But individually, at home? That's another matter altogether. However, if Joe Homeuser "doesn't want to learn" (in general), there's nothing that can be done about that. Yep, for basically the reason I stated - No de facto standard. They jumped on Linux and the desktop turned out to be a bubble that burst under pressure. Can't say that I disagree in general, but (for example) if I wasn't a photographer I'd be back on Linux at home in a heartbeat. It's much more malleable than Windows (which in turn is vastly more usable than OSX IMO). Apple hardware? Other than mice, keyboards and their "servers", it's consistently good. Their GUI? Not so much IMO. But I digress... However -- Linux in the server space? That's a completely different universe and Linux is firmly established. For example, Oracle databases ran VERY WELL (in temporal context) on Solaris RISC systems back in the 2000s, but what did Oracle do after they bought SUN? Discontinued Solaris and put their eggs in the (their, primarily) Linux basket. The places I saw Windows Server most often were file servers, SQL, AD and application-bundled (typically YASS - yet another SQL server). Not that it's not found elsewhere, but Linux is everywhere in server space. But that's aside from the conversation here.

In our experience (before I retired) with ~300-odd Windows servers and about 100+ Linux (mostly RHEL), the Linux servers were more stable, easier to manage remotely, easier to patch (with more reliable patches and less downtime) and less subject to continual upgrade requirements. Plus consolidation generally worked better on Linux, and Solaris for that matter. There were very few "one app, one server, one database" bundles like we had all over the place with Windows and SQL Server. In the rare instances the databases (Oracle and MySQL mostly) were dedicated to an environment it was due to usage requirements and scale, not OS. We could spin up on Linux VM and use if for multiple purposes, but Windows VMs spread like rabbits.

Well, maybe... if taken as a percentage of the user base but that's only a reflection of the Mac's inherent concentration in creative areas -- and relative absence elsewhere. After 2+ decades in corporate IT I can tell you that Macs (note, not iPhones, but Macs) were rare and only when individuals just had to have them, usually for nothing more than personal preference. In a corporate (i.e., AD) context they were a pain to integrate, maintain and support. The absolute size of a market is what's important to a vendor, since no one survives nor thrives on a large percentage but low absolute customer count. In absolute terms the overwhelming number of Windows users may still provide an equal, if not larger, user population regardless of percentage. That's also a big reason why (among others, like the lack of single de facto standards in many areas) Linux isn't attractive enough to Serif and other desktop vendors. Although the overall number of Linux users -- in one form or another -- is large, it's still small in absolute terms within the creative segment. And I say all that not as a Windows / MS fan (by any stretch of the imagination). In fact, all things being equal I'd run Linux in a heartbeat -- I did for years. But in the scales of market realities, Linux is currently worth commercially supporting only in the server space, not desktop, regardless of what I and others might wish.

I was correct. BMD specify ONE and only ONE Linux (also the previous legacy one that is not obsolete) if you instal it on anything else you are on your own. They don't support it. That you got it to run on other Linux is good for you, but it is still unsupported.

Linux is not an upgrade to Windows. This is like trying to discuss rationally with Trump Cultists. Linux as been going to be the "there" next-year for the last couple of decades. It hasn't actually moved at all. Actually, Linux support for the desk/lap-top is decreasing. Several companies who did support Linux are no longer doing so. The problem is Linux supporters are Religious and make far more noise than the many happy users of other systems. Most Linux Users think Linus and Unix are the same thing, which is amusing. Despite this long-winded thread, Affinity are not going to do a Linux version.

Thing is, when you look at the server side of things, the Linux market share has quickly grown to be much larger than any of the traditional UNIX systems, mainframe environments, or other traditional server platforms. Most of the IBM mainframe operating systems originally shipped with source code (in assembly language no less) and each site would customize their installation to their needs by modifying the code and rebuilding the system based on those modifications - things like assigning ranges of device numbers to different types of storage devices or terminals would be handled by updating an assembly language file and rebuilding the nucleus (kernel) of the system. Software that worked in one environment may not have worked in another, even if they were running the same version of the same operating system, as they could be configured very differently from each other. It was not uncommon for newer versions of a UNIX system or of many other even commercial operating systems to break compatibility with older software and require a recompile at least. In fact one of the main selling points of the Solaris operating system (Sun's UNIX platform now owned by Oracle) was the "application binary compatibility guarantee" - that software compiled on an older version and correctly using documented APIs would continue to work on a newer version of the operating system. This was one of the ways they distinguished themselves in the market. The issues you are citing as being "Linux" problems have been commonplace and normal throughout computer history, including in the commercial operating systems that Linux was originally created to mimic. When Windows NT was originally released, it could run OS/2 software and had a POSIX environment (different from WSL), both of which are gone now. The original Windows versions could only run 16-bit applications, but the 64-bit versions of Windows have dropped support for 16-bit Windows applications completely. Solaris actually has better compatibility with older software than Windows does, yet it has been marginalized on the market when compared to Linux. Yes, the software compatibility issues are a disadvantage that Linux has over *some* commercial platforms such as macOS, Windows and Solaris, but macOS and Windows are hardly immune to that either, and I'm not sure that this is really a major reason why its desktop market share is still relatively small. A lot of people go out to the store to buy a computer, and what comes on it? Many of them just use what is there, not necessarily knowing any better, and never bother to upgrade to Linux or some other superior platform. Windows is what gets shipped on the computers, thus it is what people use when they simply don't know any better, and thus what they learn to use. If you want to fix the market share, get more Linux-based computers out into the stores where people can see and buy them. Now you have a range of new problems to contend with...

Apparently, flatpak is not the salvation people say it is. There were discussions on this going back up the tread. I have been involved with software for decades and Linux is always "about to be". It will never become mainstream on the desktop for the reasons Linus often repeats at Conferences. Unfortunately, no one listens to him and the situation never improves. At one time, several Computer companies, eg Dell. HP and others would supply new machines with Linux installed. Now they don't any more and only offer Windows (AFAICS) So if anything Linux has gone backwards. I would not use Linux on a primary computer for reasons of security. There are problems with both Windows and IOS, but you know where they come from. With Linux it is still the wild West and almost anyone can subvert Linux, including the kernel. Apart from that, the Linux desktop/laptop user market that would want Affinity is less than 1% of the market. It simply isn't worth it commercially.

That would be interesting. The problem is, I have discovered over the last couple of days, Linux is being dropped as a target by some software producers rather than gaining ground. Mainly for the reasons Linus gave. The vast majority of Linux distributions are now obsolete and unsupported. There are some mainstream ones but even there the market is fractures in to multiple small markets that are changing asynchronously. Black magic effectively id their own Linux, but that was for systems costing £50,K upwards. (you could only use the Linux Resolve with the BMD edit hardware desks.) When they did a stand-alone Resolve that did not need their hardware to work, it was on Mac and Windows only. There was no Linux version until some years later. Because several major customers had the Linux version (with the edit desks so they were spending £/$ miilions with BMD) a stand alone Linux version came later and that was for one version of Linux only. Ie based on the original one they used. When this died, BMD swapped to one other target Distro. So if you want a Linux Resolve you use the one and only version of Linux they say. Of course, these are dedicated Video Edit computers. If you want a Linux Affinity, it is likely to be on one version of Linux and set up exactly as Serif say it should be set up. So you are likely to have to change the Linux you use and use the set-up serif, say just to use affinity.

The problem is that on the desktop, Linux is NOT a major environment. It has less than 4% of the market. Having worked in critical systems' software for about 35 years, I can tell you Linux has major, serious, problems. Firstly, it is a religion. Its followers evangelize and make exudes for problems The Faithful accept these excuses, and tend to double down, but in the cold light of day they don't stand up. Just because it is mostly POSIX compliant does not make it a UNIX. There are POSIX systems that are SIL 3 rated and Do178 DAL A rated. Linux is usually not permitted for any 61508 or Do178 system. Second, it is very easily intentionally corrupted (and often is). Apart from accidental problems, hackers, up to state level actors, have intentionally put malware and other problems into Linux. Yes it could be done with other OS but it is far more difficult and would requite the knowledge of the companies involved. In the case of Apple and MS, only the US government could do this. With Linux, almost anyone can do it. (see the Thompson UNIX back door hack for a method) Before COVID there were found to be multiple ghost contributors to the Linux Kernel. No one knew who they were, and some of their patches did affect kernel security. I believe three were thought to be state actors. Thirdly, much of the code is appallingly bad. (I have seen good static analysers run over the code) As Linus Torvald has said, testing is not good and people are adding "cool" things rather than writing solid code. Patches go in without proper regression testing, and neither do they tend to test anything bar the patch. Next, Almost every Linux is different to the next one. There is no standard distribution. Most Linux web servers are based on a commercially maintained distribution from a major commercial Linux distribution. The Linux I run here is a version that has been customized, tested and maintained by a commercial company. It is not let back out into the wild. Linux has a very long way to go before it is as robust and safe as other systems.

You're new here... I saw this argument for Linux in the 90's, 00's the 10's etc. Linux has been "about to break through" every other year for the last 30. It has taken the server market. It is gaining in the embedded market (but not for the reasons you might think), however it has been going nowhere on the desktop for all the reasons Linus Torvald often explains at conferences. There are plenty of videos of him doing this. The situation is not improving and won't until there is a sea change in the way Linux is done. That is unlike to happen any time soon.

To confirm, I am a moderator of the Affinity Forums - however I'm not a Developer or manager of the Affinity apps, therefore this decision is not mine to make. I can only provide you with the information we are provided with internally, which I will do my best to summarise below: As far as I understand, we have no current plans for a Linux version, and no current intention for this to change. We unfortunately cannot comment on your 'what if' scenarios, as not only would this be purely speculative, any such major shifts in the market would likely require a large overhaul of many software companies, including Affinity - and this isn't something that I believe any company would actively plan for or consider, based on the previous market trends. I am not aware of any current 'goal' or 'criteria' to achieve before the above changes. We are currently interested in continuing to improve and update the Affinity apps across Windows, macOS and iPadOS and are not, at this time, looking to develop for the Linux market. _________ I do not wish for this post to be seen as a 'definitive answer' as to whether we will, or won't develop for Linux in the future, as this isn't something I can personally say for certain. As you may have heard before, "You never know what tomorrow brings" and similar to your hypothetical questions in your original post, no one can ever be truly certain of the future and how the ever changing landscape of software development may move our current ideas.

Wasn't a question about wine or asking serif to make a linux version like the other topics, I'm talking about what conditions need to be met for Serif to make a native version. I'm also not interested in a debate about if it should be done, and the other linux topics have devolved into a bunch of Windows nuts trying to convince everyone that linux sucks. I'm not interested in that noise. If you aren't interested in the topic, I would say the best thing to do is not get involved in the topic.

It shouldn't be hard. Offhand I don't recall the syntax for creating a symlink on Windows, but it's not hard. Generically, the process would be something like: Make sure no Affinity app is running. Move the actual folders to wherever there's room, i.e., the new location (or copy then delete the original, just to be safe) In the original location, create a symlink(s) with the same exact name as the folder(s) you moved / deleted, but pointing to the new location instead Now when Windows, Photo, whatever, accesses those folders it will actually be accessing the ones in the new location, but it'll never know the difference. This technique is used all over the place by unix / Linux (in fact by many OSes).

They have enough on their plate sorting Mac, Windows and OSPad fixes out without adding Linux to the mix. Is it financially worth it? while there are a lot of linux desktop users is it financially viable to make a paid for system that caters for 4-5% of the desktop OS market and then deal with the compatibility of the major desktop distros e.g. Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, Fedora and Arch and all their baby sub distro's and, while there is a hive of linux bees ready to get their busy fingers on the keyboard and into the command line to solve all the issues that come up, I don't think enthusiasm will sustain development. Caveat: I have been known to be wrong

Actually because Linux is less than 4% of the market that is causing people who previously did Linux versions to stop. Asynchronously to this, a friend who uses Linux (also OSX and Windows) mentioned that one of the games he plays is no longer being supported on Linux. Apparently, when the Linux they primarily developed for broke the game: they said no more Linux. this is seems is not uncommon. As noted, there are many different Linuxes that are constantly and asynchronously changing. I know one Tool supplier that will add 10% as a line item to anyone using Linux for the additional support that it will require. Flatpak isn't a solution, though it may be in the future for some systems, The other problem is the Open Source and nature of Linux. Microsoft and Apple can sign legally binding NDAs with NVIDIA, ARM, Intel, AMD etc on roadmaps and advance information. They can also do deals for device drivers etc. There are differences between the Windows/Mac Resolve and the Linux version for this reason. There are Codecs and drivers that will never appear on a Linux system. That is the problem and why Linux will never hit mainstream.

Agree to disagree on this front, as I think it's an important thing to worry about. I don't believe MS would ever go to extremes as to revoke licenses for the sake of it but it's certainly a possibility that they may be forced to do for whatever reasons, be it legal or political. The difference really is with open source, I take ownership of the software, if I don't agree with the developers of that software I can fork it, I can do all the same with it. Look at Blender or Gimp as an example if I wanted to I could rebrand and sell the software (would be extremely shady and morally wrong to do that but you know what I mean). You have far more control over Linux than you do over windows. Even down to the smaller details like changing things on your desktop which you can't on windows because you're not the one in control of it, MS are. Anyways, like I said previously my intention was not to do a windows vs mac vs linux thing, it was to point out that everyone has their own terms, their own preferences, their own needs. MS doesn't fulfill my terms, needs or preferences and so I use linux. I'd use Mac but then I'd be kinda back to square one but with no control over my own hardware lol

So thank you, @Wanesty and @ElementalWarrior, I was able to get Photo 2.3 running on Manjaro Linux (in a VM). I figured Manjaro would be a good a choice since it's Arch-based and up-to-date. Some screenshots here: https://imgur.com/gallery/G6gtzlJ A little "trip report": is it usable? I'd say no, not really. I tried Vulkan and OpenGL, and they both had (different) UI issues. Some issues with focus (had to tab to change the Gaussian blur values). It's too bad that I can run games like Elden Ring really well through Steam, but not Affinity Photo. I wish that Serif would do a little work to make their products just a *teensy* bit more compatible with Linux. They don't even have to mention it in the patch notes or tell anyone! Wouldn't it be great if v2.5 (or 3.0?!) just magically worked on Linux.

I've been trying for quite some time to make Affinity apps run on Linux, without much success. As promissing as all the suggestions I've found were, eventually they all ended up as failures. Then a couple of days ago, for whatever reason, I came up with the idea to simply copy the entire Affinity installation folder from my Windows machine to a CrossOver installation on my Linux Mint machine. Lo and behold, to my absolute surprise, both apps were able to not just start, but also properly activate and run without any issues whatsoever. If anyone is interested, both Designer and Photo are version 1.10.6, running on CrossOver for Linux v23.6, which again runs Wine v8.0.1 in the background along with the preinstalled .NET Framework 4.7.2 inside a CrossOver bottle. My question is simple. Am I allowed to run and use Affinity apps like this? Affinity doesn't install on CrossOver at all because of the cursed .NET Framework 3.5 but apparently it works fine when the Windows installations are just copied inside CrossOver. EDIT: I understand that this section is intended for Windows and MacOS but I really didn't know where else to post my question.