Linux. Seriously now.

[SrPx]

 I (graphic grunt thick skull, not being a programmer) completely understood it, don't worry.  

[hresto]

As a Linux user "Ubuntu Xenial" I already purchased this product for Windows. I'm disappointed that I can't use the same license for the Mac version. But, what I'm really disappointed about is that products like these are not available for Linux users who will pay premium for a quality piece of software. Every time I have to dual boot and fire up Windows to use this product I find myself wondering why anyone would use a resource hungry piece of crap slow OS to run their graphics programs. Corel released AfterShot Pro v.2 and v.3 in 64-bit for Linux. Probably the fastest non-destructive photo editing software period. Yes, I purchased it and I'm happy using it. BUT, I would love to use Affinity Photo in Linux and would pay to use it in place of photoshop. Charge me $500 for a lifetime license and I would buy it in a second. This would also allow Serif to flood the market with AF.

[SrPx]

Quote

 I find myself wondering why anyone would use a resource hungry piece of crap slow OS to run their graphics programs

 

Well, if you are asking....  Because it is not slow if well configured. because some people -me- is happy to trade installing abit more RAM, and live with the fact that maybe Bledner Cycles renders faster in Linux, for example (with other software or to achieve other graphic tasks, does it worse (mostly as the software is not even yet there)) in exchange of very key advantages for a professional graphic work.  I do so and earn my plate of food this way in main fields of graphic creation and editing (since decades). And because even if that were true (with a good machine and well configured OS, well, I've been using it since always, and my daily tasks run pretty smooth here...And I do print resolution stuff in a very old machine....) the availability of software, of drivers for virtually any hardware, compatibility with the whole globe in terms of software used by clients and whoever (this is way more important than it seems...), and it being quite practical as a system for users that don't want to loose time with the actual system (Macs are even this in a higher level) makes it quite a nice choice for doing graphics. And I have used the 3 systems (and Linux when it was much harder(and limited) to use, later on used for a while Ubuntu and similar flavors). I miss too many things in Linux, "not yet there" (as a proof, here a lot of people constantly requesting the software to be ported to Linux, while in Windows or Mac there are a bunch of other good , professional level alternatives (to Adobe's) already. IMO Affinity has the two more complete now, but the others are quite good and established. (happens in both Mac and Windows.))

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, hresto said:

But, what I'm really disappointed about is that products like these are not available for Linux users who will pay premium for a quality piece of software.

So how many Linux users do you think would pay a premium for this, & how big a premium do you think they would be willing to pay? Whatever numbers you come up with, are you basing them on any actual market research you or others have done or is this just speculation on your part? If the former, what is it? In short, can you quantify any of this?

 

3 hours ago, hresto said:

Every time I have to dual boot and fire up Windows to use this product I find myself wondering why anyone would use a resource hungry piece of crap slow OS to run their graphics programs.

Building a bit on what @SrPx said, those resources provide dozens of system level services available to any app coded to use them. This facilitates efficient & consistent inter-application communication, security features like sandboxing or fine grained access controls, dynamic memory management, device-independent LAN & WAN connectivity, & so on. While it is true various Linux distributions can include the same or comparable services, there is no guarantee they will include them all by default, or that users will know how to configure their systems to use them, or do so even if they do.

 

Because the Mac & Windows versions of the Affinity apps do rely heavily on system level services, this means developing Linux versions that maintain feature parity across those two platforms versions will be considerably harder than that already has proven to be for them. So perhaps what you should be wondering about is what would convince Serif to do this.

[mauriciomarinho]

Just to add my +1 here. Linux really needs a graphic suite, the options are... not good. I'm using Substance Painter (similar company size and profits?), Blender and Unity now flawlessly, which is great. I would have bought it already if not for the lack of linux support.

[Siggaard]

I don't know if it would be profitable to make a linux version. (Perhaps not)

 

I own both apps for Windows and Mac, and I would probably buy it for Linux too. As a fullstack webdeveloper I use Linux a lot in my workflow (as server and in vagrant), but Linux needs a good graphics suite in order to be my primary OS. Windows needs better commandline tools (WSL is still not there IMHO), and Mac's are very expensive. 

[Medical Officer Bones]

Blackmagic Fusion is available for Linux, as is Krita, Gravit Designer, Blackmagic Davinci Resolve... Aside from the obvious ones such as GIMP and Inkscape.

Use Fusion for image editing - very powerful. Even Krita is quite a capable image editor now - and as a drawing/painting tool it leaves Affinity in its dust. Or run PhotoLine in WINE (which also supports colour management).

Affinity Designer and Photo might not be as popular on Linux as some here are led to believe.

[SrPx]

Oh, c'mon.... Photoline, in my tests, had a very counter productive jitter in the brush line. The interface was way behind to what Affinity offers. Krita is great, I love it and use it very often,  but with a large number of layers in a very high resolution file,  (very often in my workflow and in most professionals doing work to be printed) it can  really have performance issues, and the text tool is still ver very basic. That said, it has a great brush system, and very good brush line stabilization plus other great brush settings. Is my biggest hope in painting in the open source world, though. But it needs like... a TON more things to become as powerful in image editing as Photo is (indeed, my take at it is more of a complementary relation, ie, Krita for painting, A. Photo for everything else. BUT... AP can do painting, too, quite well, by now). And fine, as it wasn't its mere purpose when it was created (functionality field has always seem to be aiming more to C. Painter, although that has changed quite).  And in usability / UI, Affinity a ton better than Gimp / inkscape (in so, so many ways....). Besides the UIs,  Inskcape and Gimp, are very far from Affinity Photo and Designer capabilities and level of professional tasks and aspects covered.... You probably don't notice (and I don't mean specifically you ) them until you do professional work.  Anyway....makes me curious. If not so needed, why the post  here,  ?   or even why care ... ?   (seen you do quite a bunch of posts praising Photoline (btw, I wont mention it, but I believe there's  a Windows alternative a ton better than that, if really dislike AP ) , comparing it to A. Photo. And compared to another, maybe (ie, Photoshop), but compared to Photoline.... ?  I don't get it.... )

Affinity Photo and Designer are, by very far, the closest - in terms of what a professional do mind /cares - to having a Photoshop and Illustrator substitutes. If they were in Linux, I'd install Linux for them alone (as have had multi boot systems, and is not such a prob for me as it seems to be for a Linux user  (ie, seeing several linux users' long term interest in posting in this thread) to have an additional Win boot (Wine keeps not convincing me in terms of performance and compatibility)). To me what counts is where the capability and quality is, not in what particular Operating System. But which tool does get it for professional work.  But please... Gimp does not even have a proper CMYK color mode and color profiles handling, not even to the minimal levels required, and that is only one of the problematic aspects, I could even write a book about it. It is a VERY nice and useful application, and a very complete package (Gimp), but doesn't compare here, Photo is way too much more complete, usable in terms of fast UI and mostly friendly UI for newcomers (even while I do know and use Gimp/Blender/Inskcape since the arcane times, (been using Linux since the times when we all had to install distros in floppy disks, even since there was not a graphic desktop...), and overall much greater functionality for professional work. You could complement it with something doing the finishing bits (yeah, you can import in Scribus, or use certain specific utilities, but it doesn't cut it, IMO...), yes, but there's nothing fully complete for that, either, in Linux (for a very high end "finishing" group of  tasks, covering as many areas and (required for serious work) details as Photoshop or A. photo do cover. ). 

 

Anyway, anyone is completely free to stay in Linux using Gimp / Inkscape (good luck ! ). I probably would do so, just to support Open Source (I use fully Blender/Wings3D, as those instead do cover all my work needs, greatly), if all of my activity were only a hobby, my work in image editing, be it raster and vector stuff.   Or they are also free to just load Wine to....er...use Photoline, hehehe.  xDDD  (and they would be so happy with just this, that they would never need to (restlessly) post in a "gimme a linux version, plueeeeaze" thread at a Serif's forum, about a software which they are sooo convinced is much worse.... (hey, to each is own, if they think so.)  //Sarcasm.  )
 

 

[anon1]

-

[VIPStephan]

It’s stupid and a waste of resources to completely rely on a permanent internet connection, though.

[SrPx]

And still I prefer Affinity   (reasons: too many , wont make another long post...) . By far. (plus I hate the cloud. With a passion. (again, too many reasons to make it short.) )

 

So...you like this :

 

Still, Lightroom CC is likely to serve as a pro-sumer or hobbyist tool for at least the foreseeable future, as the lack of desktop file organization in the form of any central "Library" will leave professionals used to the Classic CC wanting to go back. Instead, CC puts absolutely everything into the cloud and ties it all to your Adobe ID

 

There's not a single detail of it which I could like....(for several reasons, again)

 

Since everything is uploaded in full-resolution (and original file format) to the cloud, every computer, web browser,

 

Even from my terrible connection when on the beach.....nice. Upload hundreds of gigabytes (my work with clients, etc) very often, instead of only needing bandwidth for sending final result (flattened cmyk pdf file or just a pdf as rgb.) and statuses screenshots (ie, small res pngs)....very nice.

 

And of course, you need to love CC and its (cheap?? lol) renting system. BTW, if one does, if it is soo clear to an individual, why stay around here ...? I am trying to understand that....I can't see the point.

 

In all that linked article, only thing of value for me as an artist would be, is that seems PS CC, finally, after decades and when other tools have got it way faster (and in one case, most surely, better) than it did -maybe pressured by that- is adding brush smoothing. Heck, about time.... Too late, I love how is implemented in other, extremely cheaper, and purchasable -not forced renting- 2d editing and painting tools...

 

For that single reason, i'd give it to you is one of the best updates to date, of PS. The other improvements, except  "painting performance improvements" (I worked decades using PS at companies, would have to check in real scenarios how improved is that, tho), Symmetry painting (present in Krita, Clip paint Studio (which I use a lot, the software, not the feature)) , and specially (if they did well) improvements in virtual memory system. The other tools are in a good number a bit toys for new comers, more expert people can do ALL the work with a CS 6 (heck, even a CS 2) perfectly well, and a bunch of the features added in PS are (often in its updates since the cloud) not essential stuff for professionals. I recon tho those improvements in the painting area (not an issue I experienced, but portable solutions (MS Surface, other tablets) tend to lag while painting in PS, as those are often under powered in hardware (ram, card and/or cpu), while there CSP does not lag, one of the reasons why so many comic authors use it instead of PS) where a huge lack that made tons of comic creators and a number of illustrators to go and look somewhere else, specially CSP(manga studio) and Krita. Right now is a bit too late (without forced subscription, even the other option is much less expensive, but would be a chance, at least). Plus, the price is hard to beat in apps like Affinity's , CSP,  Krita(free!), and even more, IMO, a combo of those is more powerful than PS, as each count of very strong advantages (I use A.Designer for some projects, CSP for others, Krita for others.). And is all in my machine, local, no need to connect, no monthly added bill, etc. I could even have this machine disconnected, no network (I've been long times working on the beach and countryside, reducing the size of a final deliver, even sending it by phone... But there's a ton of other advantages, is not just special cases. ). Plus, we're talking of sub 100 bucks one time purchases, extremely lower general cost. To do ....the same, or better.  Free updates for long time, in case needed. You eventually need to buy a new version, but way, way longer in time. Or you just do it, in times when you are with better income, or, just as you are happy with the company. They are not forcing you this...new tax.

 

There, now is a lot of a personal take. If you do not hate it, indeed, you love to be charged a monthly tax, to each his own. Then you fly to CC's domain and live happy for ever floating in the cloud. If you don't, you find your alternatives. I don't understand doing both things ... (well, I do if for some people if fine duplicating a cost....)

 

Well, it ended as a longer post than it really needed to be. 

 

 

[anon1]

-

[SrPx]

ah, ok.Sorry, then.  (I tend to consider the global situation we have as artists, designers, etc, about the software to choose and use...)

[anon1]

-

[SrPx]

Well, my point is, besides depending on an extra factor, and forcing you to a rent system (and 144 euros per year, is way more than other one time purchase-only solutions (again, even if one updates every two years, or even yearly and in the cases those updates require extra payment)) besides is that, as well says in that article, you need to handle all work files by uploading them. It is clear to me that the use of these apps is very varied, as users and we professionals are. You seem to be in the photography area, I'm a designer and illustrator. I guess raw images you process are huge, and in my case, my enormous print files of many layers are too many gigabytes (and I save way many versions in the HD, need external drives, etc). We are not yet, IMO, and even less considering many countries' situation, in a world were bandwidth is not an issue, specially speaking of these sizes in professional areas. great for web designers if they don't do any heavy lifting in memory. I mean, yeah, performance is great (it seems is more of an issue for your activity, despite the fact that I use hundred of layers, and many gigabytes files sizes in my several apps, but applying blur and other filters (more in your area) is not so common in my activity, and that's very cpu intensive.... ) I'm fine even with a first gen i7 from 2009 ! My time eating holes are more related to pen/brush features and all illustration and design time savers. 

 

Even more, in the case of some people -not my case, but know a bunch of great freelancers that do so- that have capped bandwidth, this cloud-only concept is a huge issue. or even worse, not just capped but quite low in gigs (ie, connections of 25 GB per month, of global transfer !. You'd be surprised how many are out there with this, and producing great work)

 

And yet even more to the problem... I read in that article that there's a limit in the standard subscription of one terabyte per month for work files.... There are months where that would be an issue for me.

 

"But pending pricing on multiple terabytes of data, it could be unrealistic for professional photographers to rely on Lightroom CC alone to hold their data or even to upload all of it to begin with. And because Lightroom CC uploads every image to the cloud (there's a way to ensure an image is or is not downloaded locally, but no way to stop an image from being uploaded if it's imported into CC),"

 

Don't take me wrong, I see your points... but even if all this can be worked out someway, is sort of adding extra deals and issues where there shouldn't be.... Work is hard enough in its own, don't need extra issues to worry about...IE, the extra worry of the connection having issues, micro cuts, large hours of no connection, etc.

 

Yep, I relate a lot hardware/software performance to whatever makes me loose time, considering performance as a global thing. If my 3D render is slow, but i can set a second machine, or simply can set less cpu threads to it, and still do work in the mean time, then I don't care that much about "raw" performance. 

 

I mean performance, after all, is to save time and make smoother your workflow. Putting the cloud in the middle, with the not so uniform bandwidth scenario (besides, imo, clearly higher cost, by several times, even with the cheapest option. Through the years, even more.) ... That imo goes against the purpose.  Even more, if your country does not have that issue, I congratulate you, but in my area (first world, anyway) is not super rare a cut in the internet provider, even for hours. Not often, but I can't even have one of several hours in a whole semester One of those things made me loose a very good client. Besides adding an extra bureaucracy or dependency with having the machine connected at the right time, even if it can "allow" a 3 months delay or whatever. Is kind of an unneeded cumbersomeness.  I'll never be able to understand why they did not do like Corel (not even after the wave of complaints and "unsubscribes") or Allegorithmic,  You want to be constantly up-to-date with latest feature ? great, go subscription plan. You are fine to update every 2 or 5 years (five....honestly, their prices were really high when was purchase only) , because (most pros I know at least in my several fields) you are totally fine with the essential stuff covered ? We have for you a purchase-option, of course, static in features. At least that. Then , in the other side I have Affinity, Clip Paint Studio, Krita, Corel, etc. Most of them with free updates (for some time since a purchase, or till major releases) and very reasonable price. In all my tests, I can do all work and pretty fast with these... No-brainer, at least in my case.

 

There's a extreme difference though in the work of a Photographer (I'm coming to realize) and somebody that does does a bit of all (but gigs or high complexity, tho) , and mostly illustration of high res and graphic design. IE, I do rarely need to process 10 images at once, and when I do, is so rare that if it takes a bit more time is zero issue.  Indeed, my major time consuming task is 3D rendering, and that'd be solved in a second by just purchasing a second machine, sth I'll do anyway. So, performance, imo, is often combined with all those factors (same reason why a kid just learning 3D will have extremely poor performance in his/her 3D work despite having the best cpu in the market and 64 gb RAM, if hasn't yet learn how to optimize a 3D mesh). I mean speaking of performance as a whole (software techniques, not just raw power, included in the equation, too), as a worker. CPU and software performance is one of the factors, I consider it a bit more globally (even more considering often money/time spent in other matters also important). Again, I realize performance can be more critical to you. I can see my Windows PC having some slight issue with a +100 layers press file, but I have a ton of tricks I know and I can handle it perfectly....

 

[anon1]

-

[VIPStephan]

11 hours ago, MBd said:

having a platform independent editor like adobe now has, and storing everything in the cloud are two very different pairs of shoes, you can have each one without the other

But you still need a more or less permanent internet connection to use this program, which is a stupid waste of resources and might hinder you in your work more often than you like (e. g. if you’re working on the train or plane or whatever).

[anon1]

-

[R C-R]

27 minutes ago, MBd said:

no, a browser can run a local program perfectly fine ...

Don't be too sure about that. A browser is just an application, & like any other app it is subject to any restrictions an OS might place on it, what standards it has been programed to support, the services that can be made available to it locally or over a network, applicable per user & system preference settings, etc.

[mrnhmath]

elementary OS would be a perfect target to Serif products in the (ever growing) Linux market. It's a very polished alternative to macOS.

[simonblund]

I'm just going to leave this comment here.

I currently work with a company in which the entire development team uses linux (including me) and this seems to becoming more and more the usual these days. I need to use Affinity Designer a couple of times a week and I'm fine with using it in a VM but everytime I boot that VM up just for doing some small changes it feels like a waste of time. Since the company more than happily payed for the Affinity licence and a licence for Windows 10 just so I would be able to do small changes I don't think they'd mind paying a small premium for getting that program for Linux instead. I don't think any sane person would mind paying more for the same product for their more niche OS.

Then again I'm more developer than designer.

[SrPx]

I worked for several years (a bunch) as a front end developer, and also as the one and only person for all graphics, corporate image, web and print stuff on the company (and a huge part of the SEO / newsletter / social....yeah, doing overtime like heck, too) . Company was all about Linux, pro linux, everything with Linux. Well, I had my Windows machine and communicated well with all the team, we had our samba servers and other simpler and varied methods for sharing files and more complex interaction.  It happened fluidly, some others -specially those in the marketing / business area, had as well Win machines (we were in minority, as many web apps oriented companies).  Never any serious issue or real prob, each one working with the most efficient OS for each person's set of daily tasks. I sometimes handled a Mac, a Linux PC, though mostly a Windows machine.  Windows is dominating massively the market. Since... always. This is a fact. And it's going more and more in this direction. Inside a company (and front end development is a small portion of global population) , it depends on the workflows, and often one has certain flexibility.  I for one saw as my best fit to access remotely (not only VMs)  to a lot of Lniux/mac machines, use them remotely, even some Windows ones using included Remote Desktop or my much preferred and super loved Teamviewer (I have fixed entire machines, cleaned virus, rebooted, and continued installing, taught friends and workers new techniques, acted as tech support, made scrum-ish reunions to decide designs using interactive boards, etc, etc, etc. Heck I have even taught math classes ! ) . So much that really, to me now is more about the quality of the application itself. They have made it great. these apps.  I said it before, but something of this level, it'd worth for me going back to a multi-boot (long list of exceptional free utilities for this,  in Windows, DOS and Linux (haven't tried any OSX based)) system (not even a VM, to enjoy full performance) and install Linux if the A. apps were Linux-only , instead. But Linux users seem to have resistance for this. Indeed, the IDEAL, workflow-wise, is to have two machines at least in your work place, and even at home (indeed, specially at home)  each with one of the OSes you use more. You can have one suspended during the day till you need it, is some seconds the wake up. I have a network based HD acting as a "server" , so, no biggy.... IMO, the important aspect, having already an Win and Mac version of each app, is keep evolving the applications in this highly competitive image editing field, keep improving its quality and consolidating them.  

 

 

[km.au]

Lack of Lightroom or a Photoshop alternative is the only thing stopping a LOT of people from jumping ship. I'd jump over in a heartbeat if Affinity was on Linux. 

 

A bit like Chicken or the egg, one needs to come before the other though! 

[VIPStephan]

5 hours ago, km.au said:

A bit like Chicken or the egg, one needs to come before the other though! 

Well, why won’t you be the first to jump the ship, and then Serif will develop Affinity for Linux.

[SrPx]

 

I can tell you, the money is what goes before the chicken, the egg, and the whole freakin' farm ;).  As salaries, gas, internet, amazing taxes, electricity bill, etc, don't pay for themselves...  Besides... I'd repeat myself too much in this thread (already did) if i get into detail, but in drivers for professional hardware, software, color managing, and even in ease of use for even seasoned graphic professionals who wont EVER care to deal with OSes (not my case, am an advanced Linux user, as well! ) in all that, the situation is really bad. Is clear to me, that the ppl developing it, has been made by mostly...er, well, developers, coders, and server related people. And is excellent for those tasks, this OS. Of course, there's always been "some" interest for graphic tools. But just not enough for serious use in competitive professional environments. And I've been following with every release, for years, in the past, till recently, every bit of evolution of : Sk1 (vector package that DOES support CMYK), Synfig (2D animation package), Blender, Inkscape, Gimp, Scribus .... and many others. IMO, it's mostly Blender the one "getting there", indeed, already there, together with Wings 3D, Scribus coming close, but far in several departments, Gimp having the UI issues for most of the planet, and some areas pretty uncovered (hello, cmyk, pantones, etc). The usage reality, and the slow pace in getting to an usable point in professional activity, did drain my patience after a large bunch of years. I still use -for every gig 3D related- two cross platform, open source tools, as are useful to a large extent, 100% good ; Blender and Wings 3d. (and non graphics related, Thunderbird, Firefox and Libre Office do serve me very well (but of course, in Windows ! Unsure on what would say about it, due to compatibility with MS Office and etc, ppl working with these as their main tools in their work. Thunderbird probably the best among those))

 

I'm not super dumb... I'd too would prefer a free OS (reason why I started using Linux when it was distributed in floppy disks!) which I could use instead of a purchased OS. But while Linux for graphics is evolving (for servers and coding is at the top already) there's a very long way, NOT only limited (there's a ton more needed to jump ship) to having an advanced, pro raster and vector packages... there's much more to it for allowing a pro environment, be it freelancing or at companies... I like to think -really!- that this moment could arrive. I wonder tho, where will be by then Mac and Windows...  As a must, it needs color calibration support, cmyk profiles support in the OS, in an easy way. And drivers for a bunch of hardware devices used in pro environments.

 

Even so, if it gets to a point where one can  -like now is possible, I've done it, and do with certain tools (Blender)- afford to loose ease of use, certain features, and so, even full gigs, but being still competitive by the demands of the moments (what clients require) , but the balance would make it possible to take at least a 80% of the gigs, I'd be fine then. But is not the case, unless all of your work is only of a very specific and limited kind. And have large -in time- delivering milestones....Freelancing is very hard on its own self, (and having been at companies for very long, that's just as hard) you can't afford to add extra obstacles, IMO....