Linux user base keep growing !

[myclay]

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, it is interesting to read it. I wish you well and when you visit a coffee shop to make business decisions on the customers which go there, a good latte.

EDIT
No sarcasm was meant in the above text.
I bought the Steam Deck and was pleasantly surprised to be able to start up many beloved and used programs like Davinci Resolve among a 3D Application and other programs on it. As always depending on the use cases, Linux can be a viable solution.

Edited January 13 by myclay
clarified the texts meaning.

[Wanesty]

6 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If I looked around I would say to myself: 0 Linux.

just because linux users don't go outside doesn't mean we don't exists :(  /j

[DomeShifter]

Just another vote for Linux. I love Affinity but I also love Linux. I run a Windows VM on POP OS and it sucks! Affinity is the only reason I need to run a VM at all, all my other needs are met natively by Linux. I would pay double just to get rid of that Win VM! 😄 Pretty please consider making Affinity for Linux.

p.s. is there somewhere I can vote for this feature? I'd like to show that there is real and growing demand from Linux users (who also have the ability and are happy to pay for a good product).

Thanks,
James

[Chills]

55 minutes ago, DomeShifter said:

Just another vote for Linux. I love Affinity but I also love Linux. I run a Windows VM on POP OS and it sucks! Affinity is the only reason I need to run a VM at all, all my other needs are met natively by Linux. I would pay double just to get rid of that Win VM! 😄 Pretty please consider making Affinity for Linux.

p.s. is there somewhere I can vote for this feature? I'd like to show that there is real and growing demand from Linux users (who also have the ability and are happy to pay for a good product).

Thanks,
James

The number of potential Linux users has doubled from 1% of the market to 2% of the market.
In any case, Affinity will probably only support one distro of Linux, making the potential market 0.01 of the overall market.
It makes ZERO commercial sense for Affinity to support Linux.
 

[DomeShifter]

41 minutes ago, Chills said:

The number of potential Linux users has doubled from 1% of the market to 2% of the market.
In any case, Affinity will probably only support one distro of Linux, making the potential market 0.01 of the overall market.
It makes ZERO commercial sense for Affinity to support Linux.
 

I'm no expert as I'm new to Linux but doesn't flatpack make it so that developers don't need to worry about distros and they can be certain it will work for all? I'm not saying it makes sense right now, but I just want people to know we are here and waiting for someone to develop quality image editing (and other) software for us. If we don't speak how will you know there is such demand?

I can't believe how easy running POP OS was, I thought Linux was supposed to be hard and would not have the right drivers and all that crap. I've installed it on my new ASUS G15 with Ryzen 7 6800HS and Nvidia 3080 GPU - POP OS even understands how to switch between the native and discrete GPUs! Linux really has come a long way. I can't ever see myself going back to Windows or Mac now.

I say this because I think Linux might be at a threshold moment where adoption starts building faster and faster, especially with Steam support and so much regular PC usage now happening in web browsers, therefore being OS-agnostic.

For the first time in a long time I'm optimistic about the future of personal computing, thanks to Linux and great apps such AnyType, NextCloud and ThunderBird, etc. I'd love to see Affinity be a part of that.

[Chills]

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.

 

[Bit Disappointed]

Oh, verily he doth aspire to grandeur yet unborn, layeth claim not to the magnificence of the now, and doth yearn for the grace of the business venture's boon. Yet, he beareth none of these treasured distinctions in his grasp, nor is he fated to attain their embrace. But falter he doth not, this steadfast adherent of visions most ethereal.

[fde101]

Just to point it out, 1-2% of the Steam users using Linux, does not equate to 1-2% of the desktop market using Linux.

Not everyone plays games on their computers, and not everyone who does play games uses Steam.

I happen to have Steam on all three platforms: I have a steam deck (Linux), multiple copies of Steam installed on Windows (under CrossOver on my Mac - granted "fake" Windows but it would still be counted as Windows in the statistics, in a virtual machine which crashes when I try to run 3D graphics, and on an older Windows laptop that lacks the performance for some of the games I play), and under macOS.

Given the choice, would I rather play a native macOS game (maximum performance on my most powerful computer), a Linux game (native on my Steam Deck), or a Windows game (in which I may need to try it in several places to finally figure out where it sort of works)?

If you go purely by the numbers, I am among those contributing to the statistics being extremely misleading.  Sure, I have it installed in places that would be counted as Windows in the statistics, but I would 100% prefer a native macOS game, or failing that one under Linux, over one for Windows.  I would even look for it on my Nintendo Switch or some other console before getting a Windows version if the game is available for the Switch.

Consider also that I very rarely use Windows on one of my personal computers for anything other than playing a game (the rest of the time being to update security patches or run some program that is Windows-only (something that is already a rarity for me and is becoming even more so over time), which means that as more of the games I am interested in become available on other platforms I have access to, there will be less and less reason for me to bother with running Steam on Windows.  I suspect there at least some others in this same position, and the Windows "dominance" in the gaming market would be reduced by some non-trivial amount if more games became available natively on other platforms.

As much as I suspect this is true for gaming, I suspect it is even more true for many of the creative markets.  This is mostly a problem of momentum, but that momentum can be hard to swing.

[Chills]

23 hours ago, fde101 said:

Just to point it out, 1-2% of the Steam users using Linux, does not equate to 1-2% of the desktop market using Linux.

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.

 

 

[RichiePhoto]

On 1/13/2024 at 9:36 AM, myclay said:

  

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.

Wow, the Mac market is smaller than Linux, yet they have a Mac version available

[Chills]

7 minutes ago, RichiePhoto said:

Wow, the Mac market is smaller than Linux, yet they have a Mac version available

WOW the miss use of statistics...

All you can say there is for the games market.

For the desktop/Laptop market, it is a different picture.  However, in all market sectors Linux is 1-4% and Widows/Mac carve up the other 96% in varying amounts  depending on the sector.

In the Graphics/media world the MAC market is large, It was larger than PC's but not now. The Mac market buys commercial software.   So a large part of the MAC market will buy Affinity.

All you have actually shown that Linux users are game playing nerds not graphics developers.

The other "lie" in your statistics is you keep using "Linux"  whereas Linux is a heavily fractured market that has had to develop several "flatpak" systems none of which seem to be actually doing what was hopped.  That FlatPak is even needed highlights the problem. 

 

[fde101]

16 minutes ago, RichiePhoto said:

Wow, the Mac market is smaller than Linux, yet they have a Mac version available

That is again, Steam users, not computer users.  Steam has their own Steam Deck which runs Linux and would be counted as part of the Linux percentage, and the Linux version of Steam has the benefit of Proton, which can run many otherwise Windows-only games, a feature they do not make available on macOS, so those numbers are likely skewed.

Another thing to consider is that some game engines only make their development tools available for Windows even though they produce games that run across multiple platforms; this same issue exists with a few other development environments, and since those who are involved in development of games also tend to need to do artwork, it can further skew the availability of the produced games, since during development they will be doing most of their testing on the platform they are actually developing on, making that the most likely platform to be well-tested and released for...

It is a vicious cycle which makes it hard for anyone new to enter the market regardless of technical merit, and the fact that many companies are often more concerned with profit than with actual technical superiority or quality of life of their users does not help matters either.

This is one of the benefits of the Linux philosophy: open source projects often eliminate profit from the equation, allowing for the development of a product that can focus on technical merit rather than on how big the user base is.  Of course this is a double-sided coin, as developers need to earn a living, and if there is no profit in it, they can't devote the time to the project that they would need to in order to flesh it out the way they may want it to go.  As a result, very few of the projects progress as well as many would like, users on the outside perceive open source as somehow inferior, and we wind up with long and ultimately pointless forum threads like this one.

[fde101]

22 minutes ago, Chills said:

That FlatPak is even needed highlights the problem. 

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...

[Chills]

4 hours ago, fde101 said:

 and never bother to upgrade to Linux

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.

[Alfred]

4 hours ago, fde101 said:

and never bother to upgrade to Linux

 

9 minutes ago, Chills said:

Linux is not an upgrade to Windows.

Nobody said it is! You’re divorcing the ‘upgrade’ comment from its original context:

4 hours ago, fde101 said:

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.

 

[Chills]

26 minutes ago, Alfred said:

 

Nobody said it is! You’re divorcing the ‘upgrade’ comment from its original context:

 

You are changing the meaning of "upgrade"    Typical of cultists to change the meaning of words.

Linux is not superior to Windows.

[Alfred]

3 minutes ago, Chills said:

You are changing the meaning of "upgrade"    Typical of cultists to change the meaning of words.

I didn’t use the word myself, I only quoted it. I’m not a cultist.

Chill!

[affinity-chicken]

I have been using Windows as my primary working plattform for more than 20 years now. The fact that MS is forcing their users to get more and more to subscribe models and to make them more and more dependend from their company made me change to Linux (Manjaro) about two years ago.

What I really liked about Serif's products was that you didn't have to take out a subscription to use their software. Just like (most) Linux distributions.

Serif's applications are now the only ones I miss on Linux. 

[fde101]

On 2/17/2024 at 11:50 AM, Chills said:

Linux is not superior to Windows.

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.

[Chills]

2 hours ago, fde101 said:

Yes it is, and I did in fact intend it that way. 

Having run analysis tools over Linux(s...  plural) I can state that Linux is not superior to Windows or any other POSIX OS.
I have used POSIX compliant RTOS on airborne systems at DAL A    and other RTOS at SIL3.   Linux is fatally flawed.
 

[fde101]

22 hours ago, Chills said:

Linux is not superior to Windows or any other POSIX OS.

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.

[Chills]

5 minutes ago, fde101 said:

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.

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.

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 comparing Linux to Unix.  Linux is NOT a Unix, Both are POSIX OS and there are many POSIX OS and RTOS that are, like Linux, not a UNIX.   They are all to a far higher quality than  Linux.  

Point one: Re MS your bigotry noted.  (though MS are not entirely "clean")

Point 2 This is incorrect.  State Actors have, and still do, introduce malware in to the Linux Kernel. Also distributions of Linux.   The Thompson [Unix] Backdoor Hack  was only on the initial unstable development kernel. It was removed when the kernel became stable.  However when talking about it many years later the hack he described that, had he been malicious, he would have used is far more subtle and to this day is easy to implement to infect any Linux Kernel and GCC compiler. This alone makes Linux inherently unsafe.

Point 3 you mention servers... There are headless versions of Windows and Unix, all which do work very well. They are also more secure than Linux unless you have skilled people who can lake Linux Secure.  (Have you ever run static and dynamic code analysers over a Linux Kernel?)
For embedded use Linux is not a good choice despite many using it.  There are also embedded versions of Windows, some of which are headless.

Pint 4 "Free"  That tends to appeal to hobby people and corporate accountants.  However the lifetime costs and risks usually outweigh this.

 

[MattyWS]

I see this thread turned into a windows vs linux fanboy style flame war and I'd like to just step in and say people should take a breath. If you use Windows and you love it and would never switch to anything else, good for you! You have the Affinity Suite on your OS of choice. This kind of topic is not about you and you gain nothing from trying to gatekeep what Serif does. You already got what you wanted from the start.

This thread is about the people that daily drive a different OS that is severely lacking in the photo/vector editing side of things. I'm one of those people and I've made do with what I have (I use substance designer, krita and darktable for my image needs). It would be absolutely fantastic to have a good image manipulation software like affinity but even more so, I'm really missing affinity designer.

I honestly think affinity would dominate the space if they made linux versions of their suite. It would be the best. There is practically no competition.

As for people who are saying no one uses linux so Serif shouldn't bother, that hasn't stopped Autodesk from having Maya or Houdini, it didn't stop Epic's Unreal engine or Unity engine having native linux versions. It didn't stop FOSS projects like Blender, Godot, Gimp and Inkscape either. There's all kinds of professional software that has linux native versions that are maintained to this day alongside windows and mac versions, from massive corperations to non profits. I don't think anyone can say "no one uses linux" because obviously, we do. The desktop marketshare is rising to 5% if it's not already there, and for gaming it has overtaken Mac. There are whole companies banking on Linux like Valve, System76 etc. It's not dead and it's not dying, the linux marketshare is ever growing and IMO shouldn't be ignored.

My reasons for using linux is because it's faster, sleek and completely under my control. I don't agree to the windows ToS. Anyone that uses windows has no control over their system, heck you don't even own windows, you are licensed to it which MS can revoke at any time they want. I'm a professional game developer (3d artists specifically) and I, along with many others, are fast realising this is an option we can take.

This thread isn't about what is better out of linux mac or windows. mac and windows users already got what they want from Serif. Please stop bothering to gatekeep and let people discuss the topic at hand, which is that linux users want and need a suite like affinity and would welcome Serif!

[fde101]

1 hour ago, MattyWS said:

you don't even own windows, you are licensed to it

This is true for practically all software, including open source software - the license (open source or not) allows you to make use of code (source or binary) that belongs to someone else.

This is not to say that there are not other reasons to avoid various commercial licenses, but this matter of "ownership" is not one of them, since you will face that unless you write 100% of the code yourself, or buy the company or (often the case) the set of companies that own the [pieces of the] product you want to use.  Microsoft likely does not own 100% of what ships with Windows - for example, they too are paying to license fonts from others, to be able to include them with the operating system.  Apple does the same thing.

[Chills]

2 hours ago, MattyWS said:

I see this thread turned into a windows vs linux fanboy style flame war

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.