Best (easiest) way to run Affinity Photo on Linux?

[R C-R]

23 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

Partly Unix History till 2010, after that a bunch of Linux based flavors discovered and nowadays do dominate the Unix world.

Any ideas about what that says about the size of the potential market for Linux based flavor(s) of the Affinity products?

[v_kyr]

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Any ideas about what that says about the size of the potential market for Linux based flavor(s) of the Affinity products?

For that shown timeline (?), nothing! - Instead you would have to look after what's available nowadays as similar products for Linux platforms and the peoples demand for having the Affinity suite for Linux. Further having some poll thread with a counter, should possibly give some vague overview, about how high the Linux community demands for that is or might be.

[Chills]

10 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Partly Unix History till 2010, after that a bunch of Linux based flavors discovered and nowadays do dominate the Unix world.

This shows you have ZERO understanding of operating systems.

Linux has NOTHING to do with UNIX any more than MINIX does.
Their only connection is they are all POSIX compliant 

Many  (most) POSIX compliant OS and RTOS can be used for critical systems.  I have worked with several  eg LYNX  (used in Aviation and comms) and Nucleus.  Also various UNIX.

Linux is specifically excluded from use on critical systems because it is not secure or safe.

Many people who don't understand OS's seem to think UNIX and Linux are the same thing, they are not.  They put religion over Engineering.
See the Tanenbaum-Tovolds debate. Also the many videos on YouTube of Linus explaining why Linux fails as a generic Desktop Operating system.

 

[Chills]

Duplicate post deleted

[v_kyr]

3 hours ago, Chills said:

This shows you have ZERO understanding of operating systems.

LOL, you shouldn't assume and insist that someone doesn't have a general knowledge of/about operating systems (Unix in this case) just because he showed a general Unix + Linux overview graphic from the internet (which wasn't his own anyway).

POSIX conformity only came later in some common Unix systems and not all of them were really compliant with the standards. I worked and programmed in the past with a bunch of different Unix based systems (POSIX conform and also not that much) too, so things like Sun Sparcs (Solaris) and some other System V and BSD based Unix systems on different vendors RISC Workstations. A strict POSIX conformity was not everywhere the fact and I recall that "Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment, First + Second Edition" was my constant companion when programming in former times (...which is still a valueable resource to have near in the bookshelf).

Further Linux originated and was build out of the Unix model in mind (...aka Unix has been the main role model for Linux) and Minix those past times was something to get started with, OS principles and educational source code wise to get some insights. But due to many restrictions and missing things, many people (including me) used Xenix instead on cheaper personal PCs at home then (that offered at least much more Unix conformity than the educational Minix, but in the end Xenix wasn't that great too).

Nowadays there's not much left from the once so huge/big and expensive Unix hardware & OS system market. - And if I were today in the need of a more secure Unix OS, I personally would probably choose one of the free BSD based flavors (OpenBSD, FreeBSD), as I know BSD based systems either way quite better than any of those common mainstream Linux flavors/derivates, and as they are by far more secure.

[Chills]

2 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Further Linux originated and was build out of the Unix model in mind (...aka Unix has been the main role model for Linux) and Minix those past times was something to get started with, OS principles and educational source code wise to get some insights. But due to many restrictions and missing things, many people (including me) used Xenix instead on cheaper personal PCs at home then (that offered at least much more Unix conformity than the educational Minix, but in the end Xenix wasn't that great too).

Other than the POSIX interface Linux and UNIX are completely different. Hence the debate between Tanenbaum and Torvolds.  As you know Tanenbaum did Minix.  The debate is fully public.  The fundamental differences are why Linux isn't used in critical systems. Linux mostly isn't  POSIX compliment. it also doesn't work like UNIX. Macs are based on BSD via NextStep. The problem is most Linux are different to each other and constantly changing.

Most of my 40 years in SW has been below the OS API   I normally work with RTOS, often bare metal.  Though I used Solaris as a development host to target various other things. (PPC, 68K etc)  and have run many OS on the desktop, CP/M,  OS9, UNIX(various), LynxOS, Dos (various) Windows, OSX, and several Linux.

Serif as major developers will have the inside track at both Microsoft and Apple on where the OS is going and the Beta's long before the public see them. Usually a year or more in advance. They will also have a hotline to the dev team and support.

With Linux there are 100s of teams developing lots of different Linux to no particular plan. (many come and go, there are over 1000 obsolete Linux distributions) Serif and MS/Apple will sign mutual NDA's  Where do you do to sign an NDA for "Linux"?  I don't mean the kernel but the distribution? Where do you get the guaranteed  plan for Linux for the next couple of years?  No one develops SW like this for an unknown moving target

This is why BMD for Resolve went with ONE Linux distribution (right down to a version number)  from a major Linux distributor who was a legal entity they could sign legal agreements with. If you used *any* other Linux BMD said you were on your own.

So you are asking Serif to put in a LOT of work for a version of Affinity on Linux for a very small numbers of users.  The number of Linux users is  apparently around 4% of the market of Linux, MS, Mac users.  Most of them won't want Affinity. Serif won't get their money back.   They are in business not religion.
 

 

[Wanesty]

still ignoring flatpak, i see...

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, Chills said:

Other than the POSIX interface Linux and UNIX are completely different. Hence the debate between Tanenbaum and Torvolds.  As you know Tanenbaum did Minix.  The debate is fully public.  The fundamental differences are why Linux isn't used in critical systems. Linux mostly isn't  POSIX compliment. it also doesn't work like UNIX. Macs are based on BSD via NextStep.

I already know all that, so that's nothing unknown or new to me. Further as being someone who worked several years for NeXT's german subsidiary and thus also programmed a lot for NeXT systems in the pasts, I know pretty well most about the former times NeXTstep/OpenStep & WebObjects systems, also the later Apple's OSX origins which were entirely based on NeXTstep's former ecosystem. - But that's all yesterday's snow.

1 hour ago, Chills said:

The problem is most Linux are different to each other and constantly changing.

That's right, and every now and then another new one appears on the scene. As if there weren't enough of them already. - And which is also the reason why I'm peronally not that much interested in Linux nowadays, as it's too crowded with different systems so that one can easily loose the overview.

1 hour ago, Chills said:

Serif as major developers will have the inside track at both Microsoft and Apple on where the OS is going and the Beta's long before the public see them. Usually a year or more in advance. They will also have a hotline to the dev team and support.

With Linux there are 100s of teams developing lots of different Linux to no particular plan. (many come and go, there are over 1000 obsolete Linux distributions) Serif and MS/Apple will sign mutual NDA's  Where do you do to sign an NDA for "Linux"?  I don't mean the kernel but the distribution? Where do you get the guaranteed  plan for Linux for the next couple of years?  No one develops SW like this for an unknown moving target

This is why BMD for Resolve went with ONE Linux distribution (right down to a version number)  from a major Linux distributor who was a legal entity they could sign legal agreements with. If you used *any* other Linux BMD said you were on your own.

So you are asking Serif to put in a LOT of work for a version of Affinity on Linux for a very small numbers of users.  The number of Linux users is  apparently around 4% of the market of Linux, MS, Mac users.  Most of them won't want Affinity. Serif won't get their money back.   They are in business not religion.

Serif has certainly weighed all this up for a long time and has therefore expressly/probably decided internally not to offer/make a Linux implementation. However, it's up to Serif to decide whether it makes sense for them or not. - Personally, I don't think it makes much sense, and looking at the current state of their software, they would be better off using their resources on the things they already offer, as there is still plenty of work for them to do.

 

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Personally, I don't think it makes much sense, and looking at the current state of their software, they would be better off using their resources on the things they already offer, as there is still plenty of work for them to do.

Agree 100% with that. More than anything else, I think they need to devote a lot more resources to fixing what seems to be an ever increasing number of bugs, particularly those that affect the stability of the apps.

[Aethernir]

4 hours ago, v_kyr said:

That's right, and every now and then another new one appears on the scene. As if there weren't enough of them already. - And which is also the reason why I'm peronally not that much interested in Linux nowadays, as it's too crowded with different systems so that one can easily loose the overview.

Basically there are three base distributions, Slackware, Debian and Red Hat, the rest of the GNU/Linux distros are variants. All variants of its mother distro share the code base, include some customizations, but are completely compatible.

So there are not thousands of different systems as you say.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Aethernir
Improve the writing to make it more understandable

[v_kyr]

18 minutes ago, Aethernir said:

Basically there are three base distributions, Slackware, Debian and Red Hat, the rest of the GNU/Linux distros are variants. All variants of its mother distro share the code base, include some customizations, but are completely compatible.

So there are not thousands of different systems as you say.

Where did I said thousends? - But much more than enough distros at all ...

• Comparison of Linux distributions
• Why Does Linux Have So Many Distributions?
• Which are the most popular Linux distros?
• Linux Betriebssysteme - eine Übersicht
• Der c't–Linux-Netzplan: So finden Sie die passende Distribution
• ... etc.

[firstdefence]

8 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

And why is it called GNU/Linux when we are talking about the desktop? X11 and Xorg is MIT licensed. Other parts are BSD licensed. It should be GNU/BSD/MIT/BILLANDBEN/Linux.

It could be called the "Kit Car" of the Operating System world. 

[Aethernir]

20 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Where did I said thousends? - But much more than enough distros at all ...

Sorry, I'm wrong.

[Chills]

9 minutes ago, Aethernir said:

Sorry, I'm wrong.

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.

 

[Wanesty]

On 10/2/2023 at 12:02 AM, Aethernir said:

but are completely compatible

this is true, libraries aside, the only other issue i can see would be if a soft was made with systemd in mind but your system uses a different service manager, and if you are, you probably are qualified to troubleshoot it yourself ahah

On 10/2/2023 at 12:23 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

If that was true there would be no need for the terrible workarounds like Flatpak

flatpak's job is mainly to have libraries version compatible with the software you wish to install, windows installer kinda do that already by shipping most libraries directly with the installer...

On 10/2/2023 at 12:23 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

As I mentioned, Flatpak is a workaround not a solution.

is Steam a workaround ?

it's a package manager, i am not a fan of having an other copy of some libraries that i already had but i'm more than fine with it, if it means that the developers have more time to work on improving their software rather than on distributing it.

On 10/2/2023 at 12:23 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

And why is it called GNU/Linux when we are talking about the desktop? X11 and Xorg is MIT licensed. Other parts are BSD licensed. It should be GNU/BSD/MIT/BILLANDBEN/Linux.

it's not about licenses, rather organization,

my system should be named, at the very minimum, KDE/Wayland/Systemd/GNU/Linux, i understand the goal of giving credit to most people on the chain, but it's not doable, and this is is why i just say linux or my distro, "Arch", which can actually be more descriptive than whatever i said beforehand ahah

 

On 10/2/2023 at 9:00 PM, Chills said:

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.  

yes, Nobara linux, yiffOS, ArcoLinux, NixOS, Artix Linux, Pop!_OS, most little known distro are fairly standard or have documentation, and most of them, if fairly up to date, will support flatpak allowing you to install any of it's package, regardless of your distro's: bootloader, init system, service manager, display server, audio server etc.

there's recommendation obviously, you'll most likely want to use pipewire and most apps are transitioning toward wayland, but from my knowledge that's about it..

On 10/2/2023 at 9:00 PM, Chills said:

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.

this is fair, to a certain degree, and again, this is why flatpak exsist..

On 10/2/2023 at 9:00 PM, Chills said:

It simply isn't worth Serif supporting Linux, the market is too small and too fragmented.

not as much as you think it is

also, even tho resolve officially is only on openSUSE, people made it available on Arch, guides for fedora, and even as a flatpak package.

if your product is interesting and you, the person distributing it, is descriptive enough with it's requirement, people might just do your job for you

[leehenshall]

I walked away from my established image creation pipeline using Adobe products in favour of then upstart Affinity Photo on windows in 2016, in the wake of CC subscription sabre rattling. Based on a core ethos that I will use my skills to learn new things to retain control over how I want to run my business, control my costs and generally not accept things like subscriptions being forced, aggressive DRM and other less friendly business practices.

Once you've been in the industry a while you notice a cadence. Eventually, your favoured developers may sell their company to a not so nice bigger company, that will inevitably kill the love for the product or abuse the relationship with the users to the point where customers want to leave. This is usually driven by the need for shareholders to see returns on investment over a short period of time rather than thinking of the long term effects because they don't care about that, once they get their money out, in comes another until the product is a husk of what it once was. Then comes the next upstart. Repeat sequence.

Personally, I think the most trusted solution to this ill of modern society is open software projects, that cannot be corrupted in this way. We are already seeing open source projects like Blender beating established 3D applications and besting their development pace, product stability & winning market share.

Onto the main point, like other people have mentioned, this sort of thinking does eventually cause you think about the entire operating system.

In 2022, I switched completely to Linux. First a RHEL based distro and then to Fedora. Both RPM package managers. I'm not interested in server grade or critical systems levels of security or LTS. I just want an operating system that is open source derived, community driven and free of the things I dislike about Windows, Adobe, Autodesk etc etc. I'm not going to list all the reasons as that is not relevant. But if we are to speak about security, windows isn't exactly the poster child for a secure and problem free desktop environment 😁

Since moving to Linux, I am without a full featured 2D image editing experience, however I do have workarounds (Lutris/Wine/PhotoPea/Dual Boot/VMs) which get me most of the way whilst I wait for GIMP to finally be ready for production work in the way photoshop is. I've kept an eye on Affinity and tried getting it running via Wine. But ultimately, I've got the message loud and clear that Serif are not bothered if they lose customers like me.

Here is my current solve to the lack of Linux options for 2D image editing and creation.

2D Vector Graphics:

I use Inkscape for the somewhat small amount of Vector graphic work I do. It can open my old illustrator files with no problems and has workflows to replicate all the things I would use illustrator for. And it is open source, works offline and is DRM free.

2D Raster Graphics:

For retouching, I use a mixture of Photopea (browser based photoshop clone), Fusion and Gimp. I'm truly amazed how good Photopea is. I am able to open and edit massive PSB files I made in Photoshop years ago with no compatibility issues. It's well worth a look for any Linux nomads. I think there are some limitations regarding channels but I haven't noticed them yet.

I also would not be at all shocked if Adobe launch a browser based version of Photoshop. I believe this is already being trialled in Canada. Since Adobe is moving more and more to a service based model with augmentations of A.I technology in Photoshop and AfterEffects. I sometimes wonder whether the concept of having these sorts of applications installed on a local workstation will even exist at all in 10 years time....if you stay on the Adobe train that is.

32Bit Image editing/Compositing/Motion:

For more complex & programmatic 32 bit image editing things, I will use Fusion Studio (around £300 for a perpetual dongle). This has worked on all the distros I have tried over the years. I also use Resolve. These both work well as a After Effects and Premiere replacement.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the one major drawback for Photoshop artists using GIMP is the lack of non destructive layer based adjustments (adjustment layers) This is actually on the roadmap for later this year. Once GIMP gets this functionality, I will probably be able to use it as a true Photoshop replacement.



GIMP Roadmap:
https://developer.gimp.org/core/roadmap/

Photopea:
https://www.photopea.com/

Inkscape:
https://inkscape.org/

So anyway, that's my 2 cents. Remember that you have the ultimate tool at your disposal. Your brain and willingness to adapt your skills, time and resource towards things you believe are worth supporting. Don't wait for the Linux community to become big enough for Serif to care, you have the power to make it big enough by voting with your feet.

As a general caveat. I appreciate this advice is not relevant to everyone and could be perceived as off topic, overly aspirational or even outright evangelical. But it is and has been valid for my situation and my hope, is that another person might find them selves reading this and could find this information to be helpful.

I also have nothing against Serif, for all intents and purposes, they have been a very positive change the industry really needed, which makes it that bit more disappointing they could not stretch to a .RPM/.DEB/.run/portable compile of the software. If it were me, I would want to do it out of principle as a way to say we did something Adobe could not.

From my position of not knowing anything about how this software is made, you;d be forgiven for expecting software as young as this, not to be so difficult to scale to additional opperating systems, that it would be cost prohibitive. This could be true, otherwise, it might be that they don't want to do it out of principle for some reason.  IMO all the best software works on all three of the major desktop environments WIN, MAC, LINUX.

Cheers

Lee

Edited January 18 by leehenshall

[Chills]

18 hours ago, leehenshall said:

IMO all the best software works on all three of the major desktop environments WIN, MAC, LINUX.

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.

[leehenshall]

It's important to note, my primary motivation to post on this topic is to help other people who are looking for ways to use Linux as their main daily driver and are having difficultly building a complete pipeline for image creation. I'm not trying to convert people who are happy using other systems. I don't see it as a religion, just an option, and we are lucky to have these kinds of options at zero cost of entry. The only cost is the time to learn something different to Windows or MacOs.

I am also not offering any advice or insight into Linux vulnerabilities, especially for critical systems. I'm not sure how that is relevant for people who want to edit photos with Affinity Photo on a desktop PC, I would assume any OS not designed for critical systems would be quite vulnerable to targeted attack. Your primary motivation doesn't come across like it's driven by any a concern for peoples data security or to be helpful in general, you seem to be putting most of your energy into shouting down anyone who wants to use Linux as a desktop environment using your experience in critical systems as the main crux for that argument.

The fact remains, if Linux is such a non-viable option as a desktop environment. Why has it persisted for all these years? and people are actually using it as a desktop environment and developing compatible multi platform software. It would be safe to say uptake of Linux has increased in recent years, you'd expect something that has little chance of being a major desktop environment would see dwindling numbers, not increasing numbers.

My primary industry is CGI and VFX. I use Blender for many things and it is safe to say it is a popular Linux application. If you look at the benchmark data for their pathtracer, you can see benchmark results categorized by OS. Here you can see Linux actually has more submissions than Mac OS. Whilst this is not definitive and is possible some are render nodes, it does appear that more than 4% of Blender users are Linux based. Blender also works on all Linux Distros using a single deployment. The Blender Foundation also produce films with it using their in house team who all use Linux.

https://opendata.blender.org/

You also have to look at the gaming scene. Linux has seen a huge uptake since Valve included proton compatibility layer implementation into Steam, bare in mind, Gabe Newell (owner of Valve) is ex Microsoft staff (13 years & oversaw the first 3 releases of windows). They also use Ubuntu as a base for the Steamdeck portable gaming device. Unreal Engine, directly supports Linux and is using a multi distro deployment. It is totally viable to develop realtime 3D content and video games using Linux with nothing but UE5. You also have Autodesk Maya, Nuke, Flame and even Adobe Substance Painter/Designer. Some major film post production studios use RHEL Linux to do VFX for feature film.

When you couple all of this with excellent Windows emulation of many games and software via Wine/Lutris. I would say it is indeed an incredibly viable option for creative professionals. I haven't booted into Windows for over 18 months. Linux even reserves less of your vRam for the OS which directly improves rendering performance.

If you are correct with what you say about Linux not being ready, then you are presenting at the very least a highly subjective opinion and at worst a polarizing slightly out of touch opinion, if you look at who is using it in creative industries as an example.

I think the take home point here, is, can Linux be a viable desktop environment? yes absolutely (I am), but it is relative. You can make an argument from which ever lens you choose to view it from. And no one opinion is better than another. It's just what works for you and what does not.

I'm not saying everyone can use Linux as a desktop environment but you appear to be suggesting that no one should bother trying based on your perspective. Which IMO is not constructive.

[Chills]

3 minutes ago, leehenshall said:

I'm not saying everyone can use Linux as a desktop environment but you appear to be suggesting that no one should bother trying based on your perspective. Which IMO is not constructive.

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.

[leehenshall]

Let's agree to disagree. 🙂

Linus Torvald is the creator of Linux. Not the person who decides what people choose to use it for.

[Chills]

2 minutes ago, leehenshall said:

Let's agree to disagree. 🙂

Linus Torvald is the creator of Linux. Not the person who decides what people choose to use it for.

And there we go... I give you solid engineering, and you come back with "lets agree to disagree"

Nope.

The reality is Linux is not in its current form workable as a major desktop OS,
It is not commercially viable for most commercial developers to target.

[Chills]

6 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Even that 4% is very debatable. Linux on the desktop is in fairly widespread use by developers, but not by all. For those developers building for iOS, for example, Linux is of no use at all.

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.

 

[SreckoM]

It really depends on the industry.

Devs are mostly using Linux and OSX.

VfX industry is dominantly Linux.

Graphic/design industry is mostly Windows and OSX.

Servers are Linux 99.999%, but that is really not important for us, desktop users.

I think Linux is fine with Inkscape that delivers most of what is required by graphic artist. It suffers from two things though.

1. Collaboration with Adobe is not great and

2. working with larger files is not close as performant as in Adobe and Affinity products.

But if they manage to organize like Blender Foundation did, and focus on these two things, they could replicate Blender success.

[lphilpot]

On 1/19/2024 at 6:02 AM, Chills said:

As for "can Linux be a viable desktop system"?.

At home, certainly, if the user wants it. I used Linux exclusively for probably seven years, with pretty much zero substantial problems. I switched back to Windows two years ago because it came on my new laptop and with changing personal interests I was also wanting to run a few Windows apps natively instead of under WINE or in a VM.

In a corporate environment it's more problematic although not completely out of the question. The biggest factor is AD integration, SSO and so forth, though -- Not really the quality of a given desktop / OS / UI. There are AD integration solutions, but last I saw* the market hadn't really settled on a dominant leader.

There's a LOT of choice in Linux and it can be a moving target, which (as much as it might sound nice) isn't a positive from an IT perspective. I don't like Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, SAP, etc. in a general sense but having a single vendor (controlled) solution has certain business advantages from a management perspective... until it doesn't.

* I worked in corporate and SMB IT for 24 years before retiring two years ago. Over the years we had to integrate lots of systems at one point or another, in one way or another: MS-DOS, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, VAX, IBM mainframe, Mac, iOS, Windows, Netware, Linux (mostly RHEL), etc. -- Not to mention infrastructure and apps in the forms of cloud, Cisco, Avamar and so forth.

That all said, there's still a lot to like about Linux, IMO. Unfortunately no major players have shown true dedication to making it a viable cross-market desktop OS.

[Chills]

1 hour ago, lphilpot said:

At home, certainly, if the user wants it. I used Linux exclusively for probably seven years, with pretty much zero substantial problems. I switched back to Windows two years ago because it came on my new laptop and with changing personal interests I was also wanting to run a few Windows apps natively instead of under WINE or in a VM.

In a corporate environment it's more problematic although not completely out of the question. The biggest factor is AD integration, SSO and so forth, though -- Not really the quality of a given desktop / OS / UI. There are AD integration solutions, but last I saw* the market hadn't really settled on a dominant leader.

There's a LOT of choice in Linux and it can be a moving target, which (as much as it might sound nice) isn't a positive from an IT perspective. I don't like Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, SAP, etc. in a general sense but having a single vendor (controlled) solution has certain business advantages from a management perspective... until it doesn't.

* I worked in corporate and SMB IT for 24 years before retiring two years ago. Over the years we had to integrate lots of systems at one point or another, in one way or another: MS-DOS, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, VAX, IBM mainframe, Mac, iOS, Windows, Netware, Linux (mostly RHEL), etc. -- Not to mention infrastructure and apps in the forms of cloud, Cisco, Avamar and so forth.

That all said, there's still a lot to like about Linux, IMO. Unfortunately no major players have shown true dedication to making it a viable cross-market desktop OS.

Well you disagree with Linus Torvolds who has repeatedly said Linux is not a good choice for a desktop, and it won't succeed as a general desktop system.

Several major players including Dell and HP did support Linux by making it an option on their new desktops and laptops.  This only lasted about a year. (I have been in the SW industry for about 40 years, though not IT) There were far too many problems even with the preinstalled Linux and low take up.  That is why they dropped it.  The reasons for not having it back have got greater, not lesser.

To paraphrase: you may not like Windows, but it is the least-worst system we have.  🙂