Linux user base keep growing !

[Wanesty]

ugh.. if only a distro agnostic way of distributing packages existed :(

(it does. https://flatpak.org/ https://flathub.org/en)

[Chills]

19 minutes ago, Wanesty said:

ugh.. if only a distro agnostic way of distributing packages existed

(it does. https://flatpak.org/ https://flathub.org/en)

So what this does is the user compiles the app using flatpack, and it is automatically compiled to run on that user's Linux?

[Clif Graves]

My understanding is that flatpak combines all the parts and dependencies into one package that can then be easily installed and run on most linux flavors. It does not however deal with making a windows or mac file run on Linux.

[Chills]

8 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Flatpak is a horrible workaround for the lack of actual real world dependable standard libraries in Linux. Because there is no such thing as a single "standard" Linux distro, everyone does their own thing, and what you get is a load of different "standard" Linux distros. You have things which depend on specific shared libraries which you can't update due to dependancy issues. This removes at a stroke the idea of making software installation a straightforward task on Linux.

That is the problem with Linux. No two are the same.

Re flat pack: AFAICS  the user gets a "flatpak version" of the app and then compiles it with flatpak for their distribution. Is that correct?

[Chills]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

The idea of flatpaks is the end user does not do any compiling. Think of it as an all-included setup.exe. Or by user do you mean developer? 

So the developer sends it the app with flatpak, and it builds the app on the local computer as part of the installation set up?

Does it compile in these needed libraries, or try and find prebuilt ones on the local computer? Either way these will need to be compiled or linked in with the app?

 

[Chills]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

No. No building. Think of it as a zip file containing everything needed to run the app (not to build it). 

I have just read the links above you supplied.  I can't see any commercial SW company distributing using flatpak. 
It raises a LOT of security issues and requires a lot of work to maintain. The security issues are not one a SW company would want to take responsibility for.
In addition, I can't see Flatpak covering all Linux distributions. In which case, you are better off selecting a mainstream Linux and only supporting that.
However, for a fraction of the 4% of the desktop market, it is not worth it.

As you can see in many walks of life, a small, but vocal, group of evangelists tend to drown out the 90% majority who are quietly getting on with it.
It is the same with Linux.  A small number making a lot of noise.  

[8BitCerberus]

9 hours ago, Chills said:

In addition, I can't see Flatpak covering all Linux distributions. In which case, you are better off selecting a mainstream Linux and only supporting that.

However, for a fraction of the 4% of the desktop market, it is not worth it.

Your fundamental misunderstanding of what Flatpak is is not a Flatpak problem, it's a *you* problem. I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer and you still aren't comprehending.

Flatpak is essentially the equivalent of a Windows exe file, or a Mac app package. A single application package, that runs on any Linux distribution. Or at least any that support Flatpak, but that's effectively all of them anyway, so that's a moot point.

[Chills]

5 hours ago, 8BitCerberus said:

Your fundamental misunderstanding of what Flatpak is is not a Flatpak problem, it's a *you* problem. I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer and you still aren't comprehending.

Flatpak is essentially the equivalent of a Windows exe file, or a Mac app package. A single application package, that runs on any Linux distribution. Or at least any that support Flatpak, but that's effectively all of them anyway, so that's a moot point.

I get that it is an executable file. I also read all the problems and pitfalls of Flatpak in the links posted above. Flatpak does not run on most Linux. Not by a long way.
The links above show that for a companies like Affinity and BMD Flatpak is not the answer.  Indeed BMD had to change Linux target a couple of years ago and went for a single Linux not flatpak.  However, BMD have a small Linux user base that spend a huge amount of money with BMD. Usually in the order of 10's and 100's of thousands because BMD have a whole hardware infrastructure.

The Linux market is still only 4% of the desktop market, and that 4% is heavily fragmented. In the real world it is simply isn't viable for Affinity to do a Linux version. There are far more lucrative things they could be doing. For example, a Lightroom competitor. 

[Chills]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It is not the equivalent. Windows exes and Mac apps typically DO NOT come with all the standard libraries that are required to run those exes/apps, because they can make certain valid assumptions about what is already installed on the OS. Flatpaks bundle the whole lot again, because on Linux there is still no such thing as a standard installation.

That is how I read it. For Windows and Mac developers can sign up to a partner program and there are some fairly solid rules on the APIs and how they work. There is a also a roadmap developers can see about what is being added and what is being depreciated over the coming year or two. 

For Linux, it is still the wild west and anyone can do anything at any time. Also, anyone can (and they do)  modify libraries and other things at any time.  This can be a big problem for licensed software.

The bigger problem is, as mentioned in the links posted above, is that the developer using flatpak has to do a lot of maintenance to keep flatpak up to date. Even then it lags behind the main updates on security and malware fixes.    So flat pack far from being a solution looks like a lot of additional work for a developer  for, in this case, a VERY small, if vocal, number of users. I can't see it being commercially viable.

 

[8BitCerberus]

7 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It is not the equivalent. Windows exes and Mac apps typically DO NOT come with all the standard libraries that are required to run those exes/apps, because they can make certain valid assumptions about what is already installed on the OS. Flatpaks bundle the whole lot again, because on Linux there is still no such thing as a standard installation.

This is why I said "essentially" because it's not "exactly" the same. But it is *essentially* the same. If you look a Mac app packages, often they DO contain libraries within them that may or may not already be installed on the OS. And similarly with Windows exe, if it's a standalone exe then yes it relies on the libraries it needs already being installed on the system or will require the user to install them if they're not already. But if it's an installer, often it includes those libraries that it needs, or at the very least automatically downloads and rolls their installations in with it's own. Or if it's a "portable" app, then it definitely includes any library that it needs, as well as keeping all it's settings and the user's preferences contained within it's own folder that can then be taken to any other computer and used with all the same settings applied.

Quote

For Linux, it is still the wild west and anyone can do anything at any time. Also, anyone can (and they do)  modify libraries and other things at any time.  This can be a big problem for licensed software.

Which is what Flatpak and Appimage aims to alleviate, and to an extent Snaps as well. The particular dependencies that a program requires are included with the program, they are "fixed" at whatever version they need to be for the program to function as it was intended. When that program gets updated, if it needs a newer version of those dependencies, it will include those new dependencies with it's update.

It doesn't matter if the dependencies are or are not installed on the OS directly, and even if they are installed it doesn't matter if they get updated/changed/removed/altered in any way that may break programs that depend on them.

This is why Flatpack, et al, can run on effectively any Linux distribution. You keep saying they can't run on all of them "by a long shot"... what distributions can Flatpaks not be used on?

Are there many that don't include support by default? Sure. But that doesn't mean they cannot be used. That would be like saying "oh, well, Firefox isn't installed by default on Windows or Mac so I guess it can't be used on them." The user can enable Flatpak typically with one command on effectively every Linux distribution, and often there's a 2nd, optional command to add a plugin to their distribution's package manager GUI, so they can then be searched and installed directly from that instead of the command line.

Quote

The bigger problem is, as mentioned in the links posted above, is that the developer using flatpak has to do a lot of maintenance to keep flatpak up to date.

No more than they do for Windows or Mac versions of their software. If they develop using a newer version of a dependency, they just include that dependency in their release. If they continue using the same version of the dependency when they're developing new updates, then they just continue using the same dependency in their release. This is no different from using system APIs on Mac, DLLs on Windows, other dependencies like .NET or Visual Studio & Xcode versions. What "maintenance" are you talking about?

[Chills]

7 minutes ago, 8BitCerberus said:

 This is no different from using system APIs on Mac, DLLs on Windows, other dependencies like .NET or Visual Studio & Xcode versions. What "maintenance" are you talking about?

I don't think you understand how these systems work.

[8BitCerberus]

6 minutes ago, Chills said:

I don't think you understand how these systems work.

Please enlighten me, then.

Also, I read through the links LondonSquirrel posted and you have been referencing for all your criticisms of Flatpak. Here's a response https://tesk.page/2021/02/11/response-to-flatkill-org.html

[Chills]

11 minutes ago, 8BitCerberus said:

Please enlighten me, then.

Also, I read through the links LondonSquirrel posted and you have been referencing for all your criticisms of Flatpak. Here's a response https://tesk.page/2021/02/11/response-to-flatkill-org.html

That actually confirms my fears. If I was Affinity, I would not be getting anywhere near Flatpak.

As for your statement: "It’s literally impossible to have an issue-free/bug-free/security-hole free program." That is incorrect.  I have written several programs that have stood the test of time for 25 years without defects or security holes.     

[8BitCerberus]

14 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Please stop stating this. It is not the same or essentially the same. The word "same" is an absolute. Something is either the same or it is different. If it is 99% the same, it is still different.

Pedantic semantics. 😑

Quote

It's completely different. 

Then explain it to me. Both you and Chills claim it's "completely different" but offer no explanation WHY or HOW.

Quote

As for your statement: "It’s literally impossible to have an issue-free/bug-free/security-hole free program."

Not my statement, it's the statement of whoever wrote that article/response. But I will admit it's generally a statement I agree with, barring very niche cases such as a simple "hello world" program, or writing everything from scratch in assembly or binary, because just using a standard language comes with their own bugs and security holes that get patched up in later versions of those languages. External libraries being used, same issue. And if you ARE coding assembly or binary from scratch you are almost certainly even more likely to have bugs and security holes unless you are having all your code undergo thorough review with every change you make. We are often blind to our own mistakes.

Quote

That is incorrect. I have written several programs that have stood the test of time for 25 years without defects or security holes.

That you know of. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is highly improbable.

[Chills]

42 minutes ago, 8BitCerberus said:

That you know of. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is highly improbable.

🙂

Some of us work to higher standards where that sort of thing is normal.

[Chills]

2 hours ago, 8BitCerberus said:

No more than they do for Windows or Mac versions of their software. If they develop using a newer version of a dependency, they just include that dependency in their release. If they continue using the same version of the dependency when they're developing new updates, then they just continue using the same dependency in their release. This is no different from using system APIs on Mac, DLLs on Windows, other dependencies like .NET or Visual Studio & Xcode versions. What "maintenance" are you talking about?

It is VERY different. Week ago I had an Affinity update. Since then I have had a couple of MS updates including .NET.  Affinity updated their software with their release and asynchronously MS did updates. With FlatPack I would have had to do 3 or 4 Affinity-Flatpack updates. Well assuming Affinity had put the new OS updates in Flatpak, properly tested it  and released them the same day. Three times in the same week.  Or do you rely on some one else to update Flatpak Some one you don't know of unknown provenance.  Either way that is a lot more work for Affinity to do. Especially as you need to test the flatpak stuff you are including.

[8BitCerberus]

2 hours ago, Chills said:

🙂

Some of us work to higher standards where that sort of thing is normal.

I see, I see... so your work standards are higher than Apple or Microsoft? Serif? Adobe? That's pretty amazing.

Quote

I don't think you want to listen, so I don't need to explain it. If you spend a few minutes searching you will find exactly Flatpaks are nothing like exes or Mac apps.

The old "do your own research" approach. Cool.

Quote

It is VERY different. Week ago I had an Affinity update. Since then I have had a couple of MS updates including .NET.  Affinity updated their software with their release and asynchronously MS did updates. With FlatPack I would have had to do 3 or 4 Affinity-Flatpack updates. Well assuming Affinity had put the new OS updates in Flatpak, properly tested it  and released them the same day. Three times in the same week.  Or do you rely on some one else to update Flatpak Some one you don't know of unknown provenance.  Either way that is a lot more work for Affinity to do. Especially as you need to test the flatpak stuff you are including.

Tell me you didn't read the article I linked without saying you didn't read the article I linked. From the article:

Quote

A valid point. Since the Flatpak developers were fully aware of this problem, they came up with an acceptable and easy solution: flatpak-external-data-checker (f-e-d-c). f-e-d-c is a tool that automatically checks for external sources, such as dependencies and binaries. When an update is found, flathubbot automatically submits a merge request. Here are some concrete examples: [1] [2].

 

[Chills]

8 hours ago, 8BitCerberus said:

I see, I see... so your work standards are higher than Apple or Microsoft? Serif? Adobe? That's pretty amazing.

Absolutely!  And no, it is fairly standard.

Google 7816, 61508 SIL4, Do178 DAL A, 50128/9, 60880.
Apple and MS don't  generally work at this level.
Linux isn't even in the same country (let alone same field).

 

 

[elucubra]

Dear friends,

As you can see I'm a long time user of Serif products.

When the Affinity line I jumped right in, and now I've upgraded to the universal license for V2.  I'm very happy with the decision and actively engage in proselytism about the products.

I mainly work in Linux, only booting into Windows when absolutely necessary. Stopping my work to boot into Windows is a nuisance, and Affinity is one of the few reasons.

Linux for the desktop is very mature, and more often than not, much better and enjoyable than working in windows.

Linux is steadily growing in number of users, and many segments are rising very rapidly, for example, gaming, which is turbocharging Llinux adoption.

I have often read that Linux is still a minor player in the desktop space, but that may be misleading, and often due to a lack of serious software such as Affinity. Many people are in the same predicament as I am. We are both counted in the Windows and Linux statistics.

Many of us have turned to Inkscape, Gimp and Scribus for our needs, but really need professional level tools, with a degree of polish that often commercial software provides.

Part of the lower usage rate is due to the lack of this type of software, which leaves people like me having to dual boot to use your software.

I believe that not having the option to natively install the software is keeping a higher number of user from adopting Affinity. Valve is a prime example of the success of the adoption of linux as a prime OS.

There is also the fact that  releasing for Linux would make Affinity the ONLY commercial player in the market, and could really give it an edge over Adobe, greatly enhancing the adoption of Affinity.

I would like to request you consider the porting (does having a Mac version make it any easier?), especially now that Flatpak and Snaps exist, and removes the problem of distro fragmentation, or maybe in the mean time contribute and support the Wine effort?

Thank you for offering such a great product, in the traditional non-subscription model, and providing such outstanding value, as always.

Cheers,

a long time user.

Juan.

[Chills]

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.

 

[myclay]

  

6 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Cos the market is so small, practically nobody builds software for desktop Linux.

 

Admittedly two year old stats, but: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2022/05/linux-user-share-on-steam-hits-second-highest-percentage-in-years/

Quote: "it (Linux share of Valve users) seems to have rocketed back up to be at the second-highest point it's been in years with 1.14%". Rocketed! Rocketed up to a bit over 1%.

The market is just not there. It really isn't.

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.

[chiddekel]

Around Market share of Chrome OS ( that utilize Linux and or wine)

[Chills]

Fascinating video, from a Linux Evangelist, that confirms Linux has grown to 3.8% of the market He also sates that due to market size, multiple competing packaging/installation options, things are a mess and Linux is not a commercial option for most SW companies.  

Interestingly whilst he says Linux is a mess of competing options and will stay that way this year, it will improve "next year" Something we have heard for the last 30 years.

Not this year, but it will all come right next year!

Of course, it will......

What this video does, if you look at it in the cold light of day, is highlighting all the reasons why Linux will not be mainstream.
Linux, unlike OSX and Windows, does not have one overall controlling organization with a clear roadmap.
Windows and OSX not only have this, but commercial developers can join partner programs to give them inside information on the guaranteed roadmaps they can develop for a release in 2–5 years time with reasonable certainty of the road and APIs Also the coming support from CPU and GPU companies and the Alpha & Beta drivers.
You can't do that with Linux

 

[Chills]

9 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Because it was the first link I found. Also, two years old is not "such old Data". <2% is still not worth bothering with.

If the Linux desktop market was big enough, it would be worth it by itself. Try a little experiment: Write a business plan, along the lines of "we will ignore 98% of the desktop market and aim solely at the <2%".  See how far you get.

but... but... the Linux market has DOUBLED to "nearly" 4%!!!!
The problem is how many of that 4% will want a Photo program, a desktop publishing program?
Of that subgroup of the massive 4% how many would pay for affinity rather than follow their religion and use only Open Source/Free software?
I suspect we are back under 2% of the market.  As the Video above says the Linux market is too small. The distros far too fragmented  to be worth the effort by a VERY long way.

[myclay]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Because it was the first link I found. Also, two years old is not "such old Data". <2% is still not worth bothering with.

If the Linux desktop market was big enough, it would be worth it by itself. Try a little experiment: Write a business plan, along the lines of "we will ignore 98% of the desktop market and aim solely at the <2%".  See how far you get.

Two years is a lot in the tech world.
Depending on the product and wanted perceived image, you will deliberately do stuff which will be seen as gobsmackingly stupid for the outside world.
Aiming for specific target groups is nothing new.

According to the Steamsurvey;
Windows has over 96% of users (of ~500 Million customers)
Serif decided that it would help to cater first to the tiny minuscule less than 2% OSX crowd.