Linux user base keep growing !

[Wanesty]

9 minutes ago, Chills said:

Also it is missing several codecs that are standard in Windows and Mac.

only the free version, said codecs are distributed by windows and macOS because win and macos payed for those codecs (namely h264, h265, aac and ac3)

11 minutes ago, Chills said:

It is not supported on any other distro you are on your own

this is contradicting your previous sentence "only works on one specific Linux Distribution":

they officially support only a single distro and yes, if you want it somewhere else you're on your own, they would have probably chosen to distribute it through Flatpak if it was available back when they chose CentOS.

 

anyway to get back on track and stop talking about an irrelevant product:

14 minutes ago, Chills said:

I assume you are asking for a paid version of Affinity on Linux not a free one?

the last part about education edition of software was just to explain my point that most people that will give them money, ie not crack/endless trial the software are companies

from this i can assume that most of their incomes are from companies (no matter what size), and thus a linux version of serif's products would need to be targeted toward companies, game dev, VFX, webdev, any graphic related company that would benefit from a non subscription model and from the ease of deployment linux can offer

[Hartmut Nörenberg]

Working in a bigger group of freelancers with clients ...

We go every now and then through the possibilities to switch to Linux (in the end the distro does not matter) and we create a list oft software that we need and everything is runnig on Linux except Adobe Suite and 3Ds Max. No need to run Max - there are even better alternatives but Affinity runs great, is imho just better and OCIO is a gamechanger but Affinity is not natively supported.

As a result of the check we only have the conclusion that gimp is not "powerful" enough and we stay on Win. This has zero to do with money it's just a result of checking the possibilities. I don't see the world switching to linux and it is also sad that OpenSource (not Free) Software is not better moneywise supported but having a commercial product and support a platform (even if it needs a different license update to cover the dev costs) that no other company supports is not a bad idea.

In the end it's Serifs decision to not support Linux and we are on our own if we want to use Wine/Bottles and so on and yeah maybe there are reasons why it's not "possible" to port Affinity to Linux but from all the decisions about buying something - All I can say is that we are not able to buy or support something that is not offered and if there is a roadmap that does not include other platforms we just have to go with this knowledge that there will be no Linux Version.

More and more people are switching to Linux on their Boxes and they try it out on their own. Then comes the point where they want to do the "usual" stuff - A little creative here and there. Gimp is around the corner, they are screwed and boot windows again and find an old CS6 license. Super bad but it is how it is.

[Chills]

11 hours ago, Wanesty said:

the last part about education edition of software was just to explain my point that most people that will give them money, ie not crack/endless trial the software are companies

from this i can assume that most of their incomes are from companies (no matter what size), and thus a linux version of serif's products would need to be targeted toward companies, game dev, VFX, webdev, any graphic related company that would benefit from a non subscription model and from the ease of deployment linux can offer

I see you don't understand the market.   BMD did a Linux version when they had about 100 clients all spending over $250K per set up for video edit studios.   These were systems separate to their normal business IT set up that was on Mac and PC. 

Companies don't use Linux on the desktop in a business environment, or at least VERY few do.  Graphics related companies use MAC primarily, though PC is now growing that market.  This has been discussed in the professional graphics and video forums.

As I said the Linux desktop market is less than 2% of the overall market.   Most small companies won't touch Linux.

 

[fde101]

1 hour ago, Chills said:

BMD did a Linux version when they had about 100 clients all spending over $250K per set up for video edit studios.   These were systems separate to their normal business IT set up that was on Mac and PC.

True, but it didn't start with them.  This is the way that product worked when they bought the rights to it, and they had already been users of the product (in that format) before they took ownership of it.  In that context Linux was effectively playing the role of an embedded system.

A number of actual current embedded systems are based on Linux - it is used as the underlying OS in a lot of Korg music workstations for example (such as the Kronos series) and some high-end lighting control consoles run on it as well.  People don't interact with such products at a level that leads them to consciously think that they are working with Linux, but they technically are.

Linux has quite a significant footprint in the embedded market space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_embedded_systems

 

 

1 hour ago, Chills said:

PC is now growing that market.

This is not really because Windows has improved (it has, if slightly) so much as because Apple has done some really stupid things lately and users are getting frustrated with it.  The idiotic orange dot they insist on putting on every connected display when a microphone is in use causes a serious impact in a lot of live applications (and for those of us who have digital audio workstations and other similar software open just about constantly it provides absolutely none of the security benefit they claim it is for), the base-level Apple Silicon chips only support a maximum of two displays, and they pointlessly (and needlessly) dropped support for eGPU with Apple Silicon systems.

While it is questionable how much of a generic benefit eGPU would provide for computational reasons (it would in some cases but not in many of the cases where people might be inclined to think it would), the ability to efficiently  expand the number of supported displays on those base-level systems would open a lot of doors - and there is no technical reason the existing support for this could not have come across when they switched architectures.

For most users macOS is still vastly superior to Windows, granted it comes at a higher buy-in price, but these mis-steps are not helping.  Linux is the next best choice for general computing of what is currently on the market; I would not trust Windows for anything that I really cared about.  Linux is clearly preferable to both macOS and Windows for most server functions at this point, and has become superior to Windows for most desktop computing purposes, though many of the available applications still have some catching up to do.  While macOS doesn't really exist in the embedded space, Windows does, and some use it (for what reason I am clueless), but Linux is again obviously much stronger there.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chills said:

Most small companies won't touch Linux.

Their loss, as in many cases they are the ones that stand to benefit from it the most.

[Chills]

Having spent 40 years in critical embedded systems, I know about the use of Linux in embedded systems and why its use is banned in critical systems., (see D0178, IEC 61508 etc the latter being one I worked on)   Wikipedia is not a useable source for this sort of information.

Actually Windows has improved a lot as it effectively moved to a VAX architecture. There is a very good presentation on this, though I am not sure if it is public.   MS also, a bit late it is true actually got their act together on standards. 

According to Linus Torvld Linux is not a good choice for general desktop computing.  As for MAC Vs Windows a lot of MAC users in the Video space, myself included have moved from MAC to Windows. Linux is a very distant third, as I said for the desktop Windows/Mac make up 98%   Only the Linux Religious Devotees think otherwise.

 

[fde101]

20 minutes ago, Chills said:

Windows has improved a lot as it effectively moved to a VAX architecture

I don't believe Windows ever ran on VAX.  The VAX architecture is an old DEC minicomputer architecture which had a limited run (in the form of "micro VAX") of microprocessor systems.

Back in the 70s the VAX architecture was developed alongside an operating system called VMS, which still exists in active development today (by a different company) and is now called OpenVMS.  The VMS operating system descended from existing production operating systems and was well-architected for its intended purposes.

Someone who had once worked on the VMS platform and was very familiar with its architecture was later hired by Microsoft and became the chief architect of Windows NT.  Consequently the NT architecture was highly influenced by the VMS architecture, though VMS was never a predominantly GUI-driven system, and in order to improve graphics performance, the NT architecture originally cut some corners that created some security and stability issues that had never existed in the VMS world.  

While those specific errors in the architecture were addressed in more recent versions, NT architecture has always developed somewhat independently of the VMS architecture, though with clear, strong influences in each direction over time.  A big improvement over the DOS underpinnings of earlier Windows versions, but the only connection I am aware of it having to VAX is that VMS originally ran on VAX (like macOS, it has switched CPU architectures over time to remain current - first to Alpha, then to Itanium, and more recently to amd64).

A more detailed article for any interested (granted the article is a bit dated, but we are talking history here to begin with...): https://www.itprotoday.com/compute-engines/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-story

[Chills]

That article seems to use the presentation I have as a source.
 

[Chills]

3 hours ago, fde101 said:

Linux is clearly preferable to both macOS and Windows for most server functions at this point, and has become superior to Windows for most desktop computing purposes,

This could only be written by someone with only a superficial understanding of operating systems. Not even Linux Torvalds supports that position. In fact I have seen him argue against Linux for a generic mas desktop use. It is only the Religious Linux devotees who argue for it.

Coincidentally there is a query on the Resolve Forum at the moment  about a user with a problem with Resolve on Linux and the answer from BMD was "you are using the wrong Linux. Swap to the one we support!" 

 

[fde101]

41 minutes ago, Chills said:

This could only be written by someone with only a superficial understanding of operating systems.

Ok, you want to be technical... there are desktop environments which are written primarily to run on top of Linux which have reached the point where they can provide a superior user experience to the Windows environment.  There are some good applications for them, but many users will require applications which are currently missing or not as well-developed as those available on other platforms.

 

48 minutes ago, Chills said:

"you are using the wrong Linux. Swap to the one we support!" 

There are Windows apps that don't work or are unsupported on ARM versions of Windows.

There are Mac apps that still haven't been updated to be 64-bit and thus don't work on Macs that are remotely current.  Others that still are not native on Apple Silicon.

Your point?

 

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

And on this Windows beats Linux on the desktop by so much it's not even a competition.

Depends on the application.

[Chills]

8 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Ok, you want to be technical... there are desktop environments which are written primarily to run on top of Linux which have reached the point where they can provide a superior user experience to the Windows environment.  There are some good applications for them, but many users will require applications which are currently missing or not as well-developed as those available on other platforms.

Well I was going to be technical, having spent my career inside critical embedded systems and OS/RTOS, (it is what I did my degree in decades ago) but you are simply walling.

A simple, lightweight place for you to start is the Torvold-Tanenbaum  debate.
Also of course Linux is not secure and can't be made secure.

[Chills]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

99% of ... And that's without checking.

I cannot think of one Linux desktop app which is better than that available on either Windows or Mac. 

Part of the problem is that there are many codecs you can't get on Linux.
This comes on to the problem of licences... Linux is a REAL mess for licences.

[fde101]

2 minutes ago, Chills said:

Part of the problem is that there are many codecs you can't get on Linux.
This comes on to the problem of licences... Linux is a REAL mess for licences.

Yes, this is true.  This is a natural side-effect of the nature of open-source licenses: due to distributions generally being out in the open and available for free, there is no basis for royalty payments being made for patent-encumbered codecs (which should not really have been able to become patent-encumbered...  but that is a topic for another thread of another forum).  This of course would be mitigated if there was a mass adoption of open, patent-free codecs, but sadly the market seems to be stuck on codecs that are closed off instead.  I blame that on the market at large.

[Chills]

2 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Yes, this is true.  This is a natural side-effect of the nature of open-source licenses: due to distributions generally being out in the open and available for free, there is no basis for royalty payments being made for patent-encumbered codecs (which should not really have been able to become patent-encumbered...  but that is a topic for another thread of another forum).  This of course would be mitigated if there was a mass adoption of open, patent-free codecs, but sadly the market seems to be stuck on codecs that are closed off instead.  I blame that on the market at large.

You completely miss the point.
What is the licence for a Linux Distribution?

[wonderings]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:28 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

That is a contradiction. Users do not use operating systems (excepting a few things like configuring network interfaces). They use applications. And on this Windows beats Linux on the desktop by so much it's not even a competition.

I would say an OS is used more than just for configuring network interfaces. I agree Applications are the same when written the same, but navigating an OS for files and maintaining some organization should not be undervalued. I hate the way Windows forces you down a single rode to do something you can do in multiple ways on a Mac OS. Then there is the things that make it efficient moving between apps and functions. Gestures, hot corners, track pad and mouse interaction, they all make a huge difference in ones computing experience. Windows has definitely gotten better in this regard, but to me Microsoft is still way behind the fluid movement and interaction with the OS do work in ways that are efficient for the user. This is all subjective of course, I know people who would agree the OS really makes no difference and they are all about the application itself. Thankfully we have options. 

[pezetko]

I will add +1 for the Linux version. (If Serif ever changes their mind)
(Redhat/Rocky/Nix compatible - https://vfxplatform.com/).

And I can add another 30+ from the perspective of the VFX studio.

Even long-based Windows postproduction shops migrate to Linux now (due to the M$ roadmap to turn Windows 11/12/13… into useless web/mobile ChromeOS-like adware).
And Apple hardware doesn't provide the scale/compatibility for high-end VFX at a competitive cost.
But I understand that VFX is probably a tiny segment of Serif's customers; thus, the Linux version might not pay off, especially if it was never designed for that platform.

[Chills]

23 hours ago, pezetko said:

Even long-based Windows postproduction shops migrate to Linux now

This isn't even remotely true. 

The biggest advocate for NOT using Linux as a desktop OS is Linus Torvald.  There are multiple videos of him at conferences saying this and explaining why.
If Serif did do a Linux version of their tools, it would more than likely be on the same distro of Linux that BMD use for Resolve. As BMD say, use this exact version or you ar eon your own.

BTW just because Affinity software runs on UNIX doesn't mean it could run on Linux.  

 

 

[fde101]

On 12/9/2023 at 11:11 AM, pezetko said:

Even long-based Windows postproduction shops migrate to Linux now

Those that primarily do VFX and 3D work, yes:

 

That shouldn't be too surprising though as many of them would be moving from other UNIX platforms (IRIX from SGI was at one time a major player in this field) rather than moving from Windows.  Linux is a much more natural shift from UNIX platforms than Windows or macOS would be.

Many more are likely using Linux for servers.  Most workstations in non-VFX post houses are more likely to still be either macOS or Windows.  As has been pointed out, the apps simply aren't there yet - some are, but not enough of those which are currently in heavy use.

[Chills]

6 hours ago, fde101 said:

 Linux is a much more natural shift from UNIX platforms than Windows or macOS would be.

MacOS *IS* UNIX.   (its roots are in BSD.   Linux is a retrograde step from any UNIX.  IT is not a "natural step"

[fde101]

2 minutes ago, Chills said:

MacOS *IS* UNIX.

Fair point.  macOS is indeed a UNIX platform under the hood, and a certified one at that, but the graphical user environment it presents is sufficiently different from that presented by other UNIX platforms that for users who would be using it in the capacities described here, it would not be as natural of a jump as Linux would be.

I would argue that it would be an improvement, but many apps are written against the X11 environment and would be harder to port and have come across in a way that makes them as straightforward to work with, etc.

Most traditional UNIX workstation environments had graphical interfaces based around some flavor of MOTIF, which is also available on Linux.  Newer ones are actually using GNOME or environments derived from GNOME, which went the other way (was popular on Linux first).  This includes, for example, OpenIndiana, which is built on an updated version of the OpenSolaris kernel from back when the bulk of it was released as open-source.  Not certified, but real UNIX nevertheless.  Solaris had transitioned to GNOME as its desktop environment prior to that as well.

 

4 minutes ago, Chills said:

Linux is a retrograde step from any UNIX.

How so?  Personally I find it to be about the same in most respects.  Each UNIX platform is different from the others, and Linux is different in largely the same ways.

[Chills]

4 minutes ago, fde101 said:

How so?  Personally I find it to be about the same in most respects.  Each UNIX platform is different from the others, and Linux is different in largely the same ways.

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

[fde101]

14 minutes ago, Chills said:

See the Tanebaum-Torvalds debate  as to why Linux is not a good design

The problem here is that Tanenbaum's primary argument is against a monolithic kernel design, an argument which applies equally to UNIX, as many UNIX systems are even more monolithic than the Linux kernel, which at least supports a form of modularity with its kernel modules.  A possible exception is macOS, which does use something closer to a microkernel, though not a true one.

The remainder seems to be more historic in nature, as it relates to things which have long since not been true.

Point being, by your apparent interpretation of Tanenbaum's arguments, UNIX in general is even worse than modern Linux, with the catch being that most of the "debate" was related to things that are no longer true or are no longer relevant, as both Linux and the hardware landscape have changed significantly since that time.

[Chills]

6 minutes ago, fde101 said:

The problem here is that Tanenbaum's primary argument is against a monolithic kernel design, an argument which applies equally to UNIX, as many UNIX systems are even more monolithic than the Linux kernel, which at least supports a form of modularity with its kernel modules.  A possible exception is macOS, which does use something closer to a microkernel, though not a true one.

Are you confusing UNIX and POSIX?

[fde101]

11 minutes ago, Chills said:

Are you confusing UNIX and POSIX?

No.  UNIX was originally an operating system released by AT&T's Bell Labs.  Various forks of the UNIX code became the various UNIX platforms (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc.) which continue on long past the death of the original UNIX (a few versions of which you can download for free now and run on PDP-11 emulators if interested).

In order to promote portability of applications among these and other systems the Portable Operating System Interface standard (POSIX) was developed, which various operating systems (including UNIX, Linux and even Windows at one time) have offered compatibility with, either as their core interface for their own native applications or as an alternative API to allow "portable" code to run on an otherwise proprietary system.

UNIX later became a "standard" that companies could be certified to use as a label for their platforms, with several of the traditional UNIX vendors paying the fees and meeting the requirements for certification (as macOS currently does).  These standards, like POSIX, relate to the programming interfaces and the command line environment and largely ignore any graphical desktop interface which may or may not be sitting on top.

Tanenbaum developed a microkernel operating system called MINIX which is largely designed for POSIX compatibility but which uses a microkernel architecture, which he has argued in defense of at various times.  I tend to agree that microkernels have major benefits over the more traditional monolithic kernels that most operating system platforms continue to use, but the same could be said in the other direction as well, with monolithic kernels having a different set of advantages.  Several of the benefits of a microkernel make this architecture superior as a teaching tool (when studying the source code) and MINIX was designed for exactly that: to be something that students could study and learn from.

Linux was a personal project Torvalds started as an experiment / learning opportunity of his own, but he opted to develop it as a monolithic kernel rather than a microkernel, which Tanenbaum (who Torvalds had been a student of) evidently took exception to and started those "debates" in an apparent attempt to steer his student back to what he saw as a preferable design (and was probably right).

Linux, like MINIX, was never based on UNIX source code, but follows many of the design principles and has a high degree of POSIX compatibility, in spite of having a very different underlying architecture from that of MINIX.

 

Note that the whole microkernel vs. monolithic kernel debate is largely tangental to the UNIX vs. Linux vs. macOS vs. whatever debate - it has nothing to do with whether or not something is "UNIX" or "Linux" or for that matter implements some version of the POSIX standards.

[Chills]

15 minutes ago, fde101 said:

No.  UNIX was originally an operating system released by AT&T's Bell Labs.  Various forks of the UNIX code became the various UNIX platforms (Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, SCO, etc.) which continue on long past the death of the original UNIX (a few versions of which you can download for free now and run on PDP-11 emulators if interested).......

 

That's a good history. Saved me writing it. 🙂
I have worked on various POSIX OS and RTOS  Including those for critical systems use.
The problem is the Linux code is a mess and largely untested.  People seem to build it with  random collections of software and even more random libraries. Many of atrocious quality.  I have had over the years to run code analysers over some of it. I also know of others who use it as a large code base for testing tools. 

[Rob Seib]

I would be keen to see Serif put out a survey to determine who would buy a linux version. Affinity is the last bastion that keeps me locked into either Mac or Windows, everything else I use runs in Linux. And I love Affinity so much that I would buy it again on Linux. The work Wanesty and others have done is so incredible — I'm so grateful — but a native port of the software would be something I would pay for in a flash. I understand it's likely not commercially viable (but maybe it is, there is likely no data to make a determination at the moment).