Search the Community

True, but it didn't start with them. This is the way that product worked when they bought the rights to it, and they had already been users of the product (in that format) before they took ownership of it. In that context Linux was effectively playing the role of an embedded system. A number of actual current embedded systems are based on Linux - it is used as the underlying OS in a lot of Korg music workstations for example (such as the Kronos series) and some high-end lighting control consoles run on it as well. People don't interact with such products at a level that leads them to consciously think that they are working with Linux, but they technically are. Linux has quite a significant footprint in the embedded market space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_embedded_systems This is not really because Windows has improved (it has, if slightly) so much as because Apple has done some really stupid things lately and users are getting frustrated with it. The idiotic orange dot they insist on putting on every connected display when a microphone is in use causes a serious impact in a lot of live applications (and for those of us who have digital audio workstations and other similar software open just about constantly it provides absolutely none of the security benefit they claim it is for), the base-level Apple Silicon chips only support a maximum of two displays, and they pointlessly (and needlessly) dropped support for eGPU with Apple Silicon systems. While it is questionable how much of a generic benefit eGPU would provide for computational reasons (it would in some cases but not in many of the cases where people might be inclined to think it would), the ability to efficiently expand the number of supported displays on those base-level systems would open a lot of doors - and there is no technical reason the existing support for this could not have come across when they switched architectures. For most users macOS is still vastly superior to Windows, granted it comes at a higher buy-in price, but these mis-steps are not helping. Linux is the next best choice for general computing of what is currently on the market; I would not trust Windows for anything that I really cared about. Linux is clearly preferable to both macOS and Windows for most server functions at this point, and has become superior to Windows for most desktop computing purposes, though many of the available applications still have some catching up to do. While macOS doesn't really exist in the embedded space, Windows does, and some use it (for what reason I am clueless), but Linux is again obviously much stronger there. Their loss, as in many cases they are the ones that stand to benefit from it the most.

Working in a bigger group of freelancers with clients ... We go every now and then through the possibilities to switch to Linux (in the end the distro does not matter) and we create a list oft software that we need and everything is runnig on Linux except Adobe Suite and 3Ds Max. No need to run Max - there are even better alternatives but Affinity runs great, is imho just better and OCIO is a gamechanger but Affinity is not natively supported. As a result of the check we only have the conclusion that gimp is not "powerful" enough and we stay on Win. This has zero to do with money it's just a result of checking the possibilities. I don't see the world switching to linux and it is also sad that OpenSource (not Free) Software is not better moneywise supported but having a commercial product and support a platform (even if it needs a different license update to cover the dev costs) that no other company supports is not a bad idea. In the end it's Serifs decision to not support Linux and we are on our own if we want to use Wine/Bottles and so on and yeah maybe there are reasons why it's not "possible" to port Affinity to Linux but from all the decisions about buying something - All I can say is that we are not able to buy or support something that is not offered and if there is a roadmap that does not include other platforms we just have to go with this knowledge that there will be no Linux Version. More and more people are switching to Linux on their Boxes and they try it out on their own. Then comes the point where they want to do the "usual" stuff - A little creative here and there. Gimp is around the corner, they are screwed and boot windows again and find an old CS6 license. Super bad but it is how it is.

Serif still has no plans to support Linux, from the last information they posted. There are other Linux threads here where users are describing their experiences and approaches to getting the Windows version to work on Linux.

Are there any new? I am going to change to linux later this year. My next PC will be a System76 Thelio desktop... an absolute beast for creative work - I would love to use Affinity software with it.. Best would be nativly... .-P Affinity would be a perfect fit for Linux - there are so many overlaps of characteristics of the userbase - I think a person who uses Affinity is keen to change to Linux aswell.

Perhaps you could contact Serif directly instead of creating yet another thread about a linux version. Here you go: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/contact/

Wasn't the question of if they currently have plans and unless you're a developer I don't think you're qualified to answer the question of this topic. If you aren't interested in the topic, I would say the best thing to do is not get involved in the topic. ^^ I don't wanna come across as a jerk by repeating this, but it seems pretty consistent that any topic here about linux devolves into windows and mac users hating. I don't go into every other topic on this forum to tell people how much I hate their needs, questions or feature requests, I'd suggest everyone not do that either.

I guess, if someone, even say affinity, helped develop support for gmic on mac that could maybe make filterforge realize they are losing their mac customer base and maybe do something about it. Going back to windows isnt an option for me. I started to get a hunch its time to change platform when i got dad to move from windows to mac after all the computersupport i had to do for him for free, windows was almost unusable, but now after 2018 that he got his mac mini i rarely ever hear anything except for a few details like hes looking for a file i have to search up and things like that. I get why mac is the OS for designers etc that want to focus on creative work instead of being bothered by annoying upkeep on windows, i just want my computers to work and finally i have the os that does that. And linux? i tried to install it on my old intel nuc a year or so ago, it worked a couple of months and then it broke and wouldnt boot, that was supposedly the extremely userfriendly linux mint on very standard intel hardware which should be well supported. Its been even worse than windows for me. I think an update did it.

Are there plans for linux? Photoshop IS NOT ON LINUX. and there are millions of linux users and many millions more windows users who want to migrate to linux but don't do it because of the lack of design and photo editing software on that platform. It is URGENT Afinity they release their next versions of all their software for linux, as they already do it for the Mac (linux) I don't think it will be difficult to release a version for LINUX debian / Ubuntu.

Which is kind of a shame because Linux has technical attributes and I really like it. It just doesn't fit with the commercial desktop world in some ways. Servers? Well that's a different story...

Just to throw this out there as well, I agree that not 100% of linux users would buy affinity products, but also, how many windows or mac users would buy affinity products either? My guess is a higher percentage of mac users would buy than the percentage of windows users for sure. Given how windows is basically the default I would imagine the very vast majority of users could not care less about photo editing. At least Mac users are more likely to be the target audience for Serif, windows users are fragmented to all kinds of people from your grandma to public library users.

For anyone wondering Affinity Designer / Photo v1 works fine in linux. The only issue is the canvas flashes due to a refresh bug, but it's totally usable.

I said there were over a thousand Linux distributions. I know a dozen that are not listed on the Linux family charts. I also recall seeing a list 500 obsolete and unsupported Linux distributions. When Linux first started, every man and his dog was doing Linux distributions. Some for things like the 8** series PPC parts. Though these were somewhat re-engineered. Resolve had its own Linux (that only worked with its own hardware) The problem depending how you build it with which versions of which libraries and which apps and drivers, often no two are the same. I did have the inside track on one company that puts its app onto a Linux host. They also have hardware to debug a target running Linux. They automatically add 10% to the list price for anyone targeting Linux if they are a new customer. Simply to cover the additional support they will have to give. It simply isn't worth Serif supporting Linux, the market is too small and too fragmented.

BMD have a Linux Resolve because they did a custom Linux when Resolve was $100K a seat and required expensive hardware to run it. When they did the Free version it was on Mac and PC. The free version of Linux came later, adapted from the one they already had. However as noted on several threads currently on the BMD forum the Linux Resolve only works on one specific Linux Distribution. It is not supported on any other distro you are on your own, Also it is missing several codecs that are standard in Windows and Mac. Most of the studio versions (ie paid version) of Resolve are Windows and Mac. I assume you are asking for a paid version of Affinity on Linux not a free one?

Sounds like we are on the same page here. One of the biggest issues that I would encounter right now with a switch to Linux as my primary platform is the way that patented media codecs tend to be handled by the available applications. As I am in the USA where software patents are (sadly) enforced, I can't legally make use of applications which support codecs like the ubiquitous x264/x265 but have not obtained the required patent licenses. Many open source applications either include support for these codecs without having obtained the licenses, making them virtually impossible for users in the USA to use legally, or make them optional so that you can grab them if you are in a country where the patents are not enforced or don't mind taking the risk of using them illegally. There are few if any options that would work across the majority of relevant applications on the platform to enable *legal* support for those codecs, and I need to maintain that support (both read and write) for the foreseeable future. This means that my choices in applications would be substantially more limited than for most.

Get a grip. The Linux desktop market has grown from 2% to 4% and that 4% likes Free software. This is commercially an insignificant market compared the 96% they currently have. Why should the rest of us fund your preferences?

No. UNIX was originally an operating system released by AT&T's Bell Labs. Various forks of the UNIX code became the various UNIX platforms (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc.) which continue on long past the death of the original UNIX (a few versions of which you can download for free now and run on PDP-11 emulators if interested). In order to promote portability of applications among these and other systems the Portable Operating System Interface standard (POSIX) was developed, which various operating systems (including UNIX, Linux and even Windows at one time) have offered compatibility with, either as their core interface for their own native applications or as an alternative API to allow "portable" code to run on an otherwise proprietary system. UNIX later became a "standard" that companies could be certified to use as a label for their platforms, with several of the traditional UNIX vendors paying the fees and meeting the requirements for certification (as macOS currently does). These standards, like POSIX, relate to the programming interfaces and the command line environment and largely ignore any graphical desktop interface which may or may not be sitting on top. Tanenbaum developed a microkernel operating system called MINIX which is largely designed for POSIX compatibility but which uses a microkernel architecture, which he has argued in defense of at various times. I tend to agree that microkernels have major benefits over the more traditional monolithic kernels that most operating system platforms continue to use, but the same could be said in the other direction as well, with monolithic kernels having a different set of advantages. Several of the benefits of a microkernel make this architecture superior as a teaching tool (when studying the source code) and MINIX was designed for exactly that: to be something that students could study and learn from. Linux was a personal project Torvalds started as an experiment / learning opportunity of his own, but he opted to develop it as a monolithic kernel rather than a microkernel, which Tanenbaum (who Torvalds had been a student of) evidently took exception to and started those "debates" in an apparent attempt to steer his student back to what he saw as a preferable design (and was probably right). Linux, like MINIX, was never based on UNIX source code, but follows many of the design principles and has a high degree of POSIX compatibility, in spite of having a very different underlying architecture from that of MINIX. Note that the whole microkernel vs. monolithic kernel debate is largely tangental to the UNIX vs. Linux vs. macOS vs. whatever debate - it has nothing to do with whether or not something is "UNIX" or "Linux" or for that matter implements some version of the POSIX standards.

Just because both UNIX and Linux have POSIX APIs doesn't make them the same. Their internal architectures are completely different. See the Tanebaum-Torvalds debate as to why Linux is not a good design. Also the standard of code inside the Linux kernel is not good. The code in most Linux distributions is mediocre to poor. In addition, Linus himself says Linux is not a good choice for a desktop OS.

That is also the problem. What percentage of the 4% of the market want Affinity or any other program. Even for developers, a lot of professional tools that are available on Windows and mac are not on Linux. For many of the reasons discussed here. If 10% of the Windows users want Affinity, that is 9% of the market. If 10% of Linux users want Affinity, that is 0.35% of the market. The difference is the cost of developing for Windows is far lower per seat than developing for Linux. It is also a far smoother, and predictable path. A LOT less commercial risk.

My perspective is based on 3 decades of critical systems work on software. It is constructive because it is factual and based on engineering. The responses I usually get are religious re Open Source or emotive. Neither of which would hold water in court. As for "can Linux be a viable desktop system"?. Not according to Linus Torvald. He has stated this on the record on multiple occasions. In fact, several times this was at conferences and the videos are on-line. There has to be some major changes before Linux becomes viable in the same way Widows and OSX are. Many are organizational as much as technical. So despite what you hope for, I will side with Linus and say that Linux has a very long way to go before it is a viable general desktop OS.

The essence of what you are requesting is a Linux version compiled for ARM, which is a highly duplicated request, so you really should have posted this in an existing thread on the subject rather than creating a new one. Serif has already indicated a few times that a Linux version is unlikely to happen in the near future, though many have requested it. If they did decide to support a Linux version, adding one compiled for ARM would likely be relatively trivial. Porting to Linux, not so much. However, there is a third piece to this. Last I checked, PI OS was still 32-bit even though the newer PI hardware is fully capable of 64-bit. Serif is unlikely to release a version of their products compiled for 32-bit. If I have missed something and PI OS has switched to 64-bit, this is not an issue. If they are still 32-bit, you would almost certainly need to use an alternative Linux version that runs on the PI to host the Affinity products, even if they did decide to port to Linux and build for ARM.

@Patrick Connor - Please pin this thread to the top of this subforum. So linux users can find it easily. I created this conversation thread to focus linux issues into one main thread and also community service for linux users and Serif Staff. To help Serif and Linux users together, I am willing to beta best the Affinity Apps on ZorinOS Pro version on a StarLabs Laptop called "StarBook" with max specs for hardware. See the attached pdf file for the exact hardware and OS I will be using. I won't be able to purchase this laptop configuration until very late 2023; closer to December more likely. I noticed in certain Linux threads there was a partial functioning with Affinity V1. My gut instinct tells me the issue has to do with the implementation of the WINE windows emulation software layer for emulating Windows. I chose ZorinOS Pro because from other reviews it has the best implementation of that software layer. For my multimedia purposes, ZorinOS is the most user friendly. Currently, I have my Zorin OS copy running very smoothly in VMWare Player personal license. I ask that other linux OS users strictly avoid going into an OS battle in this thread; I have set my emotions aside and thought of other potential users not familiar with linux Oses and chose ZorinOS strictly on the need to avoid using the command line as little as possible. I have cross-checked other reviews of former MacOS & Windows OS users and have found ZorinOS to be the smoothest functional choice when switching away. My Linux OS and Hardware choice was also in direct consideration for the needs of Serif Software Developers and reduce the "migrane" of too many hardware configurations and OS dependencies. It is much easier for software developers to target a specified hardware configuration and specific OS, hence the Affinity apps were built for Windows and MacOS natively first primarily. Two distinct OSes with known hardware support. I have been trying Linux OSes for the last three years on and off, and yes I did mess inside the command line to attempt getting things working properly, which is not the average user that proactively avoids such tinkering. My recommendation to Serif is to focus on the linux file formats of either ".deb" (Debian) or "flatpak" (App file) as most Linux OS can natively support and install either one; for those based on Debian OS or Ubuntu. Zorin OS is a derivative of Ubuntu and its native software installer can install those two file formats properly without command line intervention. For Serif, here are the relevant file format community guides: https://flatpak.org/ - This community project aims to be the future of application distribution for the linux community. I recommend serif focus on this application installation format, as you can target multiple linux OSes in one convenient installation format. Linux Mint & ZorinOS can handle this format natively in their software installers without the need for command line tinkering. I figured all this out by personally testing and using mainly Linux Mint, Ubuntu (including derivatives), and ZorinOS Pro. Merry Christmas, and hope this help significantly for both Linux Users and Serif Staff. $2.2k | ZorinOS Multimedia Starlabs.pdf

Yes it is, and I did in fact intend it that way. That fact is not truly relevant to the point being made, however, nor does it mean that I think Linux or any other current platform is the future I would actually want. In my opinion there is no current operating system on any hardware which is truly worthwhile or good. Some are better fit for their purpose than others, but with all the things we have learned and basic principles of security and good engineering practices that have developed, ALL of the current operating systems I have encountered fall short. If we really want something worthwhile, we will need to start from scratch, break source and binary compatibility with all current software, and use sound architecture and design to create something better. Capability-based approaches to security, naturally isolated applications without the overhead of current "sandboxing" techniques which add pointless overhead and complexity in order to mimic classic runtime environments to minimize application changes, a consistent graphical interface which is more cleanly separated from application logic and design so that the system can maintain and even morph the UI consistently at a global level without application code changes, separation of password management from application logic so that applications can security authenticate with remote servers without ever having access to the user's credentials that are being supplied (reducing the trust footprint necessary at the application level) - I am convinced that these things can be done well if they are done from a clean slate, and that is what we really need right now in the computer industry, however much it might stretch people with established workflows and ways of thinking. The current approaches simply are not sustainable in the long term.

The problem is that unlike Windows and OSX, Linux is not an OS. Linux is the name given to a collection of several thousand different OS. There are some programs that have the complexity of the Affinity suite that run on Linux but they run on ONE SPECIFIC distribution. So Affinity might do an XYZ Linux version which may not be too difficult as OSX is POSIX compliant and Linux is not too far off. The other problem, less so for Affinity than other apps, is licensing of Codecs. Both Apple and Microsoft license some codecs you simply can't get on any Linux. Finally the number of installed Linux users who would want Affinity is VERY small (even if the users are vocal). It simply isn't commercially viable to do a Linux version (for a single Linux distribution) for the number of potential users.

uhm, why use such old Data when the user statistics can always be taken directly from the source which gives newer data too? https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam steady gains with statistics from one month ago, December 2023: 1.97% for Linux 1.63% for OSX 96.4% for Windows For Games, the market is being build up by Valve/Steam with the sale of its portable PC/Console, the Steam Deck and its newest revision. Quite a neat portable system, Arc Linux running on it. With Proton + Wine, you can besides Linux stuff use quite a lot of Windows based Games and Software on it.

This could only be written by someone with only a superficial understanding of operating systems. Not even Linux Torvalds supports that position. In fact I have seen him argue against Linux for a generic mas desktop use. It is only the Religious Linux devotees who argue for it. Coincidentally there is a query on the Resolve Forum at the moment about a user with a problem with Resolve on Linux and the answer from BMD was "you are using the wrong Linux. Swap to the one we support!"