Linux user base keep growing !

[Chills]

9 hours ago, VueJSDev said:

This is a mistake. A huge one. You should at least be considering it. The Linux community is growing daily, and many other companies (most notably JetBrains) have successfully ported their proprietary softwarte successfully, and given their customers what they want and what they need. LISTEN. TO. YOUR. CUSTOMERS.

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?

[MattyWS]

19 minutes ago, Chills said:

Why should the rest of us fund your preferences?

You aren't. Sure, if you purchased the affinity suite you're certainly helping towards funding them for you, but if I also purchased the suite what makes you think your "funds" are any more or less important than mine? You are effectively funding your own needs just as I am mine.

You also aren't in charge of Serifs money (presumably) so I don't know why you'd be trying to gatekeep how they spend it.

[Chills]

9 minutes ago, MattyWS said:

You aren't. Sure, if you purchased the affinity suite you're certainly helping towards funding them for you, but if I also purchased the suite what makes you think your "funds" are any more or less important than mine? You are effectively funding your own needs just as I am mine.

You also aren't in charge of Serifs money (presumably) so I don't know why you'd be trying to gatekeep how they spend it.

You really miss the point. The cost of a Linux version would not be paid for by the size of the Linux Market for Affinity.  It would be subsidized by the other 96% of the Affinity customers. So I would be funding both my needs and yours.

[MattyWS]

15 hours ago, fde101 said:

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.

Agree to disagree on this front, as I think it's an important thing to worry about. I don't believe MS would ever go to extremes as to revoke licenses for the sake of it but it's certainly a possibility that they may be forced to do for whatever reasons, be it legal or political. The difference really is with open source, I take ownership of the software, if I don't agree with the developers of that software I can fork it, I can do all the same with it. Look at Blender or Gimp as an example if I wanted to I could rebrand and sell the software (would be extremely shady and morally wrong to do that but you know what I mean). You have far more control over Linux than you do over windows. Even down to the smaller details like changing things on your desktop which you can't on windows because you're not the one in control of it, MS are.

Anyways, like I said previously my intention was not to do a windows vs mac vs linux thing, it was to point out that everyone has their own terms, their own preferences, their own needs. MS doesn't fulfill my terms, needs or preferences and so I use linux. I'd use Mac but then I'd be kinda back to square one but with no control over my own hardware lol

[MattyWS]

1 minute ago, Chills said:

You really miss the point. The cost of a Linux version would not be paid for by the size of the Linux Market for Affinity.  It would be subsidized by the other 96% of the Affinity customers. So I would be funding both my needs and yours.

This isn't really a concern. Sure the cost to port it initially will be high, but to maintain it alongside mac, windows and ipadOS afterwards will even out over time and they will get customers from linux coming in, which may be small to begin with but a fine investment.

Also as I mentioned in my initial post, the distribution of cost didn't seem to affect other companies making software cross platform. Look at Unreal, Houdini, Unity, Blender, Maya. Completely free software like Godot and Gimp as well, why aren't they worried about "funds"?  It's a poor excuse and a non issue when other companies seem to have no problem doing it IMO.

If it makes you feel any better though I'd gladly pay 4-5x more for a linux version of the affinity suite, as others probably would. Because there is no competition, it would be amazing to have and well worth the money. I dunno where people get this idea that the tens of millions of people that daily drive linux wouldn't pay for software... The gaming market has already shown otherwise, Linux is now more profitable than Mac is for games, this alone would suggest linux users pay for stuff just fine.

[Chills]

2 minutes ago, MattyWS said:

This isn't really a concern. Sure the cost to port it initially will be high, but to maintain it alongside mac, windows and ipadOS afterwards will even out over time and they will get customers from linux coming in, which may be small to begin with but a fine investment.

Also as I mentioned in my initial post, the distribution of cost didn't seem to affect other companies making software cross platform. Look at Unreal, Houdini, Unity, Blender, Maya. Completely free software like Godot and Gimp as well, why aren't they worried about "funds"?  It's a poor excuse and a non issue when other companies seem to have no problem doing it IMO.

If it makes you feel any better though I'd gladly pay 4-5x more for a linux version of the affinity suite, as others probably would. Because there is no competition, it would be amazing to have and well worth the money. I dunno where people get this idea that the tens of millions of people that daily drive linux wouldn't pay for software... The gaming market has already shown otherwise, Linux is now more profitable than Mac is for games, this alone would suggest linux users pay for stuff just fine.

You don't understand how software works. Certainly not the costs.

[MattyWS]

5 minutes ago, Chills said:

You don't understand how software works. Certainly not the costs.

I'm more than willing to have an open discussion so long as you are willing to stop making insulting assumptions about my intelligence. It's ok if you disagree, but I've pointed out a bunch of different for profit softwares that are cross platform with no problems. Why would sidefx or autodesk develop their software for linux alongside windows if it was going to cost them money over time? These are for profit companies. And if it were such a huge problem to do, why are these companies still successful and still developing for linux?

[Chills]

10 minutes ago, VueJSDev said:

Yep, I just learned everything about you that I need to know.

It's always the empty can that makes the most noise

This is true, and the 4% of Linux users make far more noise and evangelize far more than the vastly larger number of Windows users.  A lot of Mac users also evangelize too, but they do have some legitimate reasons.  Though less so these days.   I am OS-agnostic having Windows, Linux and OSX in daily use here. (as well as other OS. RTOs and Hypervisors.)

[RM f/g]

😢

[MattyWS]

25 minutes ago, Chills said:

This is true, and the 4% of Linux users make far more noise and evangelize far more than the vastly larger number of Windows users.

This is probably because linux users actually want to use linux, while most windows users are stuck with what they got from the store.
 

25 minutes ago, Chills said:

I am OS-agnostic having Windows, Linux and OSX in daily use here.

I've noticed the loudest anti-cross platform people in this forum often say they totally daily drive Linux, but if that were true they wouldn't be so against their favourite softwares coming to Linux. Best guess is they just use windows and want to get a leg up in the debate like "guys come on I totally use Linux daily and it's awful no one should use it, I should know because I totally use it myself, please don't make software for me or Linux even though i totally use it." - Seems sus.

Cross platform software should be encouraged and celebrated.

[fde101]

1 hour ago, MattyWS said:

Cross platform software should be encouraged and celebrated.

To a point perhaps - but there are problems with pursuing that as an end to itself.

There are inherent differences between platforms which need to be catered to in order for an application to work well on that platform.  Doing the minimal work to get something "working" on multiple platforms often means using toolkits that aim to abstract away the differences between the platforms so that an application can "just work" with minimal effort.  This is a problem because they tend to aim for a least common denominator and often fail to leverage the benefits of using the different platforms, plus the user interface is never correct for all of them - just look at apps like Blender (which is the same on every platform because it essentially invents its own platform and runs it on top of the others, making it effectively wrong on every platform), FL Studio (which looks and acts like a Windoze app when running under macOS, even going so far as to implement something like an MDI-style interface - ick - which even most native Windoze apps have long since discontinued the use of), etc...

In other words, using cross-platform development toolkits which make it feasible to maintain the application as working across a diverse range of platforms usually degrades the quality of the application on most if not all of the platforms in question.  Even when using custom cross-platform frameworks created for a specific application, it is common to either aim for a least common denominator, or to make some additional platform "look like" the first one that the program was developed for - this is almost never a good plan.

Consider how often it is pointed out that a desperately requested feature which the Affinity suite does NOT have already exists in GIMP, Inkscape, etc., but users steer away from using those apps because the overall quality of the interface seems better to them when they are using the Affinity apps.

With the Affinity suite, Serif has built the UI separately using native toolkits on each platform, which gets much closer to being correct on each platform, and they still managed to mess some stuff up (like the missing proxy icons in the title bar that could be used to move the document from its window under macOS).

Adding another platform and doing it well, even as well as the Affinity suite does, would mean adding yet another toolkit to the mix - a meaningful portion of the application would need to be rewritten yet again.  This would either mean hiring more developers to handle the native port under Linux, or taking up time that could otherwise be invested in feature improvements.

After such a port was done, there would be an ongoing need to maintain the software on an additional platform for every new feature they introduce.  They would also need to train their support team to handle the added platform, and possibly hire additional support agents.

The ongoing cost to them to do this well is higher than I think most people here are prepared to acknowledge.

I for one would much rather use an application which is native to the platform I am using and follows its conventions correctly while providing the features that I want, than a more feature-heavy application which uses a cross-platform toolkit and sticks out like a sore thumb, failing to integrate well with and conform to the look and feel of the rest of the environment.

I would also prefer that development time be invested in improving the functionality and stability of said application, than in maintaining it across platforms I don't use or particularly care about.

If Serif has the resources to hire new developers to maintain a separate Linux version of the apps without impacting development on the existing platforms, great - more power to them.

I wouldn't care as much either if they replaced the Windows version with a Linux version, so that they are still maintaining the same number of platforms, and choosing the better platforms to continue supporting.

Otherwise a more practical approach would be to make what changes are needed to the Windows version so that it at least functions under Wine.  Even if Serif does not want to support it under Linux, getting it to work in Wine would probably be a smaller effort that would enable Linux users to work with it on an "at your own risk - fix your own problems" basis.

I don't see that happening - at least not intentionally - in the near future, but it is probably the one approach they could take without substantially increasing their costs.

[dcr]

As a matter of disclaimer, I am primarily a Mac user.  I also use Windows (ugh) and Linux.  I keep an eye on Linux for a possible future switch to making it my primary system because I don't like the way Apple and Microsoft have been trending with taking away more and more control of your own computer and requiring accounts, or at least making it difficult to install an operating system without having an account on their system and whatnot.  Plus, as a Mac user since System 7, I have seen the Mac user experience decline over the years.  It is no longer the intuitive and easy to use operating system it used to be.  And Windows still stinks.  So, despite whatever shortcomings it may have, at the moment, Linux appears to be the only viable alternative to the Mac OS and Windows.

  

19 hours ago, fde101 said:

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.

I think the key is control, not necessarily ownership.  If I have a license to use a particular application, I should be able to use it for as long as I have a compatible system that can run that software.

I used to not like open source software and actively avoided it.  Now, I lean towards it, not because it is typically free but because I know that, if I can install it on my system today, I will be able to install it on a similar system five, ten or even twenty years from now.  Will I need it twenty years from now?  Who knows?  I might, especially if there are no other applications available in twenty years that can open its files.

I have both the Affinity version 1 and version 2 application suites.  I only use version 1.  Why?  Because of version 1's licensing process, no Internet activation is required to install and use the software.  With version 2, there's an Internet activation scheme because they apparently need it for the iOS versions I don't have, use or care about.  So, while I will be able to install version 1 on a compatible system in five, ten or twenty years, there is no guarantee I will be able to do the same with version 2 because who knows if Serif will still be around or their servers active or whatever.  Bottom line is that I have a paid license with no guarantee I'll be able to activate it in the future.  Just like Adobe, which I switched from because of their subscriptions and Internet activation nonsense.

Given that, were Serif to release a Linux version of the application suite, I would not buy it if they required Internet activation.  What percentage of Linux users would feel the same, I don't know.  I don't mind paying for software and most of the software I use is commercial software, but I am opposed to paying for software that then limits whether or not I will actually be able to install and use the software based on whether or not the company keeps their servers active.

[fde101]

3 minutes ago, dcr said:

As a matter of disclaimer, I am primarily a Mac user.  I also use Windows (ugh) and Linux.  I keep an eye on Linux for a possible future switch to making it my primary system because I don't like the way Apple and Microsoft have been trending with taking away more and more control of your own computer and requiring accounts, or at least making it difficult to install an operating system without having an account on their system and whatnot.  Plus, as a Mac user since System 7, I have seen the Mac user experience decline over the years.  It is no longer the intuitive and easy to use operating system it used to be.  And Windows still stinks.  So, despite whatever shortcomings it may have, at the moment, Linux appears to be the only viable alternative to the Mac OS and Windows.

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.

[myclay]

32 minutes ago, fde101 said:

a meaningful portion of the application would need to be rewritten yet again.  This would either mean hiring more developers to handle the native port under Linux, or taking up time that could otherwise be invested in feature improvements.

If I want to deploy my self written software to various platforms, while using modern development tools, I just select the accompanying export preset and after a compile, it is done... But who knows how Serif works or what tools they use to make their software.

4 minutes ago, fde101 said:

I can't legally make use of applications which support codecs like the ubiquitous x264/x265 but have not obtained the required patent licenses.

FFmpeg has figured that out and reverse engineered those codecs making it 100% legal.
 

 

[fde101]

4 minutes ago, myclay said:

But who knows how Serif works or what tools they use to make their software.

It has come up on the forums a few times that they are using one of the native Microsoft frameworks for their Windows version.  This has been cited as the reason they have not released an ARM build for Windows, because the framework was (at the time) 32-bit only on ARM, and the Affinity apps are 64-bit only.

 

5 minutes ago, myclay said:

FFmpeg has figured that out and reverse engineered those codecs making it 100% legal.

WRONG.

If FFmpeg is compiled to use these codecs it is illegal to use in the USA (and several other countries) unless patent licenses have been obtained.

The codecs themselves are covered by necessary patents - not just the implementations of those codecs.

[Chills]

5 minutes ago, fde101 said:

It has come up on the forums a few times that they are using one of the native Microsoft frameworks for their Windows version.  This has been cited as the reason they have not released an ARM build for Windows, because the framework was (at the time) 32-bit only on ARM, and the Affinity apps are 64-bit only.

 

WRONG.

If FFmpeg is compiled to use these codecs it is illegal to use in the USA (and several other countries) unless patent licenses have been obtained.

The codecs themselves are covered by necessary patents - not just the implementations of those codecs.

The FFmpeg documentation points this out. In fact the licences says you can't use FFmpeg for anything commercial (at least the last one I read said that)

The legality gets interesting: This is why Affinity can read various Adobe formats but not save in those formats.

[myclay]

https://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html

Quote

Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned.
 

https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html

MPEG-LA's fees are zero for the first 100,000 units, 20 cents per unit until 5
million, and 10 cents beyond that, capping at around $5m per year.

and here is a thing; depending on how the user downloads those files, it is completely legal (for you as the developer).
Similar distribution and linking rules applies to Blender GPL and plugins.

 

[walt.farrell]

30 minutes ago, fde101 said:

This has been cited as the reason they have not released an ARM build for Windows, because the framework was (at the time) 32-bit only on ARM, and the Affinity apps are 64-bit only.

Affinity V2 has been reported as working on Windows ARM devices now, by the way.

[fde101]

4 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Affinity V2 has been reported as working on Windows ARM devices now, by the way.

I believe that is via dynamic translation though, not with a native ARM build?

[walt.farrell]

5 minutes ago, fde101 said:

I believe that is via dynamic translation though, not with a native ARM build?

I haven't seen any indication of a different build, and I have no information about how Windows handles X64 programs on ARM.

[Dan C]

58 minutes ago, Chills said:

@V******v

I got this from you but you seem to have either deleted the post or blocked me..... (actually the account seems to have been set up and deactivated just for  this post.

To confirm, this new user has been banned from the Affinity Forums for continued abuse of both users and moderators.  They should not be able to return to this thread/site.

Our sincerest apologies for the manner in which this user conducted themselves, as we do not tolerate this anywhere on the Affinity Forums and do not expect our users to be subjected to this type of abuse.

Should you see any further posts in this manner, please report them to the moderation team immediately. Many thanks.

[Chills]

10 minutes ago, Dan C said:

To confirm, this new user has been banned from the Affinity Forums for continued abuse of both users and moderators.  They should not be able to return to this thread/site.

Our sincerest apologies for the manner in which this user conducted themselves, as we do not tolerate this anywhere on the Affinity Forums and do not expect our users to be subjected to this type of abuse.

Should you see any further posts in this manner, please report them to the moderation team immediately. Many thanks.

Many thanks.  In which case, can you please remove my post on this. I have hidden it  (I don't seem to be able to delete it) but as you have resolved the issue it is best that my post containing the original post and my response to it is deleted.

As Staff/Admin, you have no need to apologize for the actions of posters. They are responsible for their own actions.  Besides having been online since 1980 I have a thick skin. 🙂 

[Old Bruce]

11 minutes ago, Chills said:

Besides having been online since 1980 I have a thick skin. 🙂 

In 1980 I was using the Infranet, which is fewer than one computers networked together (in a cave grooving with a Pict).

[Chills]

16 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

In 1980 I was using the Infranet, which is fewer than one computers networked together (in a cave grooving with a Pict).

The Internet actually started in a NATO meeting in Sussex University, UK, in September 1973 to be precise, (I still have some of the documentation)  and was getting quite common in some circles by the mid 1980s.  The Eternal September was 1993 it was a couple of years later with html and websites starting appear generally in the wild that the internet really took off in the mainstream. 

[Old Bruce]

@Chills I was talking about the Infranet, not the Internet. I still have a bunch here in the room with me. You may call them pieces of paper, or even notebooks, operated with pens and or pencils.