Please consider support for GNU/Linux OS

[capy81]

Hello dear Affinity team,

I'm writting just to urge you to consider the evolution that GNU/Linux OS has achieved in the last 5 years or so as a desktop ready viable option, and exploring this market niche to develop affinity Photo for this OS as well, I think AP would looks great on top of a debian based distribution, both products are of an exceptional high quality, I think many people in the world it is expecting the coming of AP, It will revolutionize the market as crazy if you put AP into it, It is worth the price, and at the same time this eventually will let well beyonf AP over other competitors that don't think in GNU/Linux, please AP be the first.

Thank you for your attention, and congrats for such an amazing piece of software.

All my best,

 Carlos Arturo Pimentel

Edited August 8, 2017 by capy81
grammar

[Merde]

There's already a thread on that subject:

In short: there is virtually no chance for Linux Affinity apps.

[haraldthi]

Only statistics will say if there's a chance or not.
Serif does well in considering what will give them the most out of their efforts, but Linux is both maturing and growing as a market, and that makes it more a question of time than an "if". *When* is the market large enough and mature enough to be worthwile?

If there's a platform that's going to lose out today, I think it'll actually be Microsoft, because they have almost entirely lost the enthusiast market (except for gamers) and etnhusiasm is what drives a market forrward, long term. Not a "I don't care, I just need something that works". Ask IBM what happened to their dominant market position in the 80s, and you'll find out how that works. Microsoft and the PC market almost completely undermined them, because they were seen as a behemoth unable to move or do anything of interest. Today, Microsoft is that behemoth, and their abandonment of proper ethics gives them a rumor they can't survive very long.

So, I'll wait and see how the market grows. And the first programs that works for me on Linux, I'll buy and use.

[- S -]

What does GNU stand for?

[Merde]

4 hours ago, haraldthi said:

Only statistics will say if there's a chance or not.

Not really.

"We would only make a Linux version if we were confident we would recoup the $500,000 it would cost us to build it", but further staments made it clear for me: it's not only a question of money.

I believe Serif has not enough man power to develop for another platform. Just look what happened when they made iPad version. Desktop development slowed down considerably.

I understand that and don't really mind. Just an observation.

BTW, I had been Linux advocate myself once and I would probably buy another license for AD and AP. But I'm a relist, too.

 

31 minutes ago, Sima said:

What does GNU stand for?

 

I don't know why you ask, but here you are:

"GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!", chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code. The GNU project includes an operating system kernel, GNU HURD, which was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation (FSF)."

[- S -]

1 hour ago, Sima said:

What does GNU stand for?

 

1 hour ago, Merde said:

"GNU's Not Unix!"

I see.  What does that GNU stand for?

[haraldthi]

It's a clear enough answer to me. They need to know that enough people will buy it. Based on statistics.

Serif will do what they consider best for earning more money. And be able to hire more staff, so that they can grow even faster. If that means releasing an ipad app in a market they deem ripe for it, they're betting that it will be a strength. Just the same way as if they were developing a desktop app. If they considered the ipad app a loss, they wouldn't do it. With many of the libraries being the same it's long term gain, even if it may have hurt the performance short term.

What they're effectively saying is, you can't harass them into developing for a platform like Linux. They're thinking about it rationally, so you need rational arguments. And the most pressing argument is statistics, because that will tell them if they'll have the needed economic gain or not.

[Alfred]

26 minutes ago, Sima said:

I see.  What does that GNU stand for?

 

You say "I see", but it doesn't sound as though you do! GNU is a recursive acronym, where the G stands for GNU; cf. PHP (a recursive acronym for 'PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor') or WINE (a recursive acronym for 'WINE Is Not an Emulator').

[haraldthi]

Ah. What do they stand for, politically?
It's a rather radical movement in free software. It started with competing versions of the UNIX operating system releasing different versions of their tools, and everyone was pretty confused because what the software houses thought of as their unique strengths in the market developed into every system it's own ways of doing things. So people with time on their hands (hobbyists, students and academics) made their own tools and released it so everyone could use it freely, with the one exception that if you changed the tools or built further on them, you had to release that too freely and under the same terms.

Linux is an example of that. Linus Torvalds, at the time a finnish student in informatics, wasn't pleased with the current crop of operating system kernels and their limitations on how he could change them at will, so he made his own one under a GNU license. It was pretty small and limited at the start, but it caught on and spread via bulletin board systems (the internet of the time). It was a missing piece for a fairly complete set of tools under the GNU license so it fit in and made the package whole. They finally had a whole, freely available system they could tinker with and change as they wanted. Linus is more pragmatic than many in the GNU movement, which is considered more religious, but they have a working relationship. Even if the GNU movement has released its own kernel, HURD, over time.

So it really started out as a system for tinkerers, but grew and now works fairly well. For consumer oriented programs, the freely available tools work as a lowest common denominator, but when it comes to raw computing they're pretty much at the forefront. I very much like that there's freely available tools I can go to when I need to do something I don't do much, but when it comes to the tools you work with and live by, paying a little more may very well be worth it. Your paying for software helps people develop their software further. So as far as it doesn't go into exploitation and monopoly practices, you get what you pay for.

[- S -]

2 hours ago, Sima said:

What does GNU stand for?

 

2 hours ago, Merde said:

"GNU's Not Unix!"

 

49 minutes ago, Sima said:

I see.  What does that GNU stand for?

 

19 minutes ago, Alfred said:

the G stands for GNU

So it's GNU's allll the way down?   

[haraldthi]

Just now, Sima said:

 

 

 

So it's GNU's allll the way down?   

Yep. It may be rather nerdy, but then again, these people are okay with that. :-)

[paristo]

7 hours ago, Merde said:

I don't know why you ask, but here you are:

"GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!", chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code. The GNU project includes an operating system kernel, GNU HURD, which was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation (FSF)."

 

There are few technical mistakes, and as well pure lies.

 

First of all, Original Unix (that's name was by mistake in the trademark office mistaken as "Unix") was 100% open source and free software. Most Unix systems were open before universities started to close them to get money. The Unix system was a strict standard that then ended up to have lots of programs and libraries that were closed, so you became locked to the systems. And this is where the FSF got started by the RMS by writing the GPL license and starting the GNU system by writing one by one own programs and libraries to replace the proprietary ones. 

But GNU project never got their operating system, called HURD (it is a double acronym: "Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons" and "Hird" = "Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth") and it is a newer OS by architecture, a Server-Client where a whole operating system is operating as Microkernel + Servers (not to be mistaken to Modules) for technical reasons. The original architecture for operating systems is the Monolithic, that Linux is following. It is a whole operating system working as a single program. 

GNU project never finished or got even close to finish the HURD, so to get a working Unix-like system, they needed an Operating System and by luck a Linux was started and preseting lots of promise and capabilities so GNU community started to use Linux instead HURD, and it caused a problem for RMS that someones else operating system was replacing HURD operating system for GNU project and getting fame about free software operating system. So RMS started years later to talk about how Linux was supposedly to be called as "GNU/Linux" and even some GNU programmers went and modified then years later other system programs like "uname" to include a non-standard switches and renamed "Operating System" to "Kernel" just to defend RMS propaganda for fame. 

 

When Linus started to write his own operating system, he did so without code from the Unix. He had read the book about Minix and had some information about Unix design but started Linux by himself and that was even from a terminal program. Then released it in basic OS form and people started to help him modifying the code and adding features etc. 

 

Today Unix is the most used operating system. It is operating almost 70% of the smartphones, almost 70-80% of the servers and it is totally dominating embedded systems market. It is a single individual software project that has more importance to whole digital world than any other software in use. But no one can do anything just with the operating system, as operating system is there just to make it possible to run multiple other programs same time on same hardware by offering multitasking, as well making it easy to port a software from one hardware to another by offering a hardware abstraction layer. 

The main work of all is done by system programs, system libraries and all kind other software above those that finally are there to offer graphical user interfaces (GUI) and applications like Affinity Photo etc. 

The majority of the software developers, never is required to touch anywhere near the low level system programs and libraries and get close to even operating system, as some of the developers get in touch with the OS interface (called as "System Calls") when they are working on very low level, but no one touches the operating system than operating system developers or system program/library developers itself. 

 

The Affinity Photo could be possible to be ported to be run on Linux devices, but developers at Affinity would still be working with system libraries and programs like glibc and then GUI toolkits etc. And when those are ported to run on some operating systems, they can get their application running by various of operating system from Linux to OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, XNU etc (XNU is btw the 100% open source and free software operating system by Apple, that Apple uses in their OS X and iOS and their Apple Watch etc. Even their operating system is totally open, but problem is that you don't have the closed drivers and such to get it modifications compiled so you could run OS X or iOS system programs and libraries on it). 

 

The XNU as well stands for "XNU is Not Unix", but funny thing is that XNU is licensed Unix operating system (not just "Unix-Like" with most compatibilities but fully licensed Unix operating system). 

 

So actually Affinity could port their software to run on Linux, like they already has it on XNU and NT. But if there ain't needed system programs and libraries and toolkit running on Linux, it is then not possible. 

 

 

[paristo]

5 hours ago, haraldthi said:

Linux is an example of that. Linus Torvalds, at the time a finnish student in informatics, wasn't pleased with the current crop of operating system kernels and their limitations on how he could change them at will, so he made his own one under a GNU license.

Actually first Linus released his operating system under his own license. Then a single system admin renamed the operating system as "Linux" once he set up a FTP directory for Linus at university server.

And Linus didn't care about modifying a operating systems, he wanted to have a Unix, but to get a Unix at that time, the single license to run was 135 000mk (You could buy a new car for a 80 000mk). 

Then later on Linus relicensed his operating system under GPLv2 (and not "GPLv2 or later") and it can't be changed from that license because GPL license is based to copyright (even when it is "copyleft" license) and to change the license, Linus would need a copyright approval from everyone whom code is in Linux. So tens of thousands for copyright owners would need to give permission to Linus to change the license from GPLv2 to something else, or then remove that code from Linux. 

 

 

5 hours ago, haraldthi said:

 

It was pretty small and limited at the start, but it caught on and spread via bulletin board systems (the internet of the time). It was a missing piece for a fairly complete set of tools under the GNU license so it fit in and made the package whole. They finally had a whole, freely available system they could tinker with and change as they wanted. Linus is more pragmatic than many in the GNU movement, which is considered more religious, but they have a working relationship. Even if the GNU movement has released its own kernel, HURD, over time.

 

BBS was running on Internet. The Internet is nothing else than a low-level computer network, a system that defines how every computer communicates to each other. It is like a road network on country. Then every system like BBS, WWW etc are higher level protocols that are used top of the network that we call "Internet".

 

Linux is the full operating system, it doesn't miss anything. But no one does anything with just the operating system. You don't write any code with operating system etc. You need programs like text editors or compilers so you can write the code and then compile it to machine code. And those programs were available on GNU project. So you used a Linux operating system and GNU project programs and libraries to write new software and that way build a whole software system piece by piece. 

 

It is wrong to call Linux as part of GNU project, just like it is wrong to call GNU project software as part of Linux, as Linux means only the operating system, not the software system itself. 

5 hours ago, haraldthi said:

So it really started out as a system for tinkerers, but grew and now works fairly well. For consumer oriented programs, the freely available tools work as a lowest common denominator, but when it comes to raw computing they're pretty much at the forefront. I very much like that there's freely available tools I can go to when I need to do something I don't do much, but when it comes to the tools you work with and live by, paying a little more may very well be worth it. Your paying for software helps people develop their software further. So as far as it doesn't go into exploitation and monopoly practices, you get what you pay for.

 

It started and still is for those who need to be able to improve things or do what they specifically need. That is why there are so many distributors that are taking the free software and building a software systems that they need or want to offer as easy installation medium. They can modify the code, patch it as wanted etc and this way make it easy to use. 

Distribution is like a custom made cake. Someone goes to grocery store and buy all the gradients they like and then mix them in ratio they like and bake the cake they like. And then they offer those cakes for free (or for money) to others so others don't need to go through all the hassle to get to eat a cake, instead they get it ready nicely in a box, and with every box comes the receipt for the cake if someone wants to go and make a own or get hands dirty and change the receipt and make a new custom one.  

 

 

 

[haraldthi]

9 hours ago, paristo said:

Actually first Linus released his operating system under his own license. Then a single system admin renamed the operating system as "Linux" once he set up a FTP directory for Linus at university server.

And Linus didn't care about modifying a operating systems, he wanted to have a Unix, but to get a Unix at that time, the single license to run was 135 000mk (You could buy a new car for a 80 000mk).
...

I'm sure you're right. I was just doing a quick writeup, and in a roundabout fashion, in case someone wondered "what the heck is GNU and all that".
We're informed gradually anyway, so I see it as more important to meet the immediate need than being absolutely right. All you can swallow, quite often, is a roundabout and not always entirely correct explanation, so I though it fitting.

 

[paristo]

I'm sure you're right. I was just doing a quick writeup, and in a roundabout fashion, in case someone wondered "what the heck is GNU and all that".
We're informed gradually anyway, so I see it as more important to meet the immediate need than being absolutely right. All you can swallow, quite often, is a roundabout and not always entirely correct explanation, so I though it fitting.

 

The education needs to happen with correct information from the start, or the whole learning process for the future is destroyed.

 

This is like why learning to count from 1 to 10 is crucial skill as a child, later to sum up numbers or extract like 5+2=7 or 5-2=3, or learning to crawl before walk, because every new learning is required to be used in the future. Now what would happen if suddenly in the 7th grade a match teacher would come and say that everything you have learned about math has been wasted and you need to learn that there is no symbol + anymore to be available?

 

Your head would explode as you can't learn something so deep things away anymore!

The same thing is with information of the history, as it is teaching what is a action > re-action > consequence logic.

 

This is why when talking about history and so on, it is important to be as accurate and precise as possible so the information itself that is given in shorter time, is still usable in the future and valid.

We can all see this happening with the languages, that gets transformed and changed by the users, because laziness! And it as well often comes because user doesn't know the meaning of the word, so it gets used in wrong place by a wrong way and wrong reasons and that causes misunderstandings and even weakens the communication. 

 

Like what is said that Mark Twain wrote: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” and I totally fit for that. As I don't have time to go through my writing three or four times to correct spelling etc. But if I would, I would definetly get my writings shorter and better. But then again so many isn't even willing to spend time to read longer posts than 2-3 lines (about 30-40 words) so it raises question, why to even write to them anyways when they are not willing to read even a postcard? We live in twitter era, 140 letters and that's it. But what happens when you need to deliver the complex message over in short form? Well, it reminds me from the joke of the blond and brunette sisters: https://www.sandrahill.net/BlondeJokes.html

 

It is like why we tell the short stories for our children before going to bed. They don't get them first, but later when adults, they find the logics and the teachings behind them. 

 

Like example: You have been walking on the desert for days with little water and you tumble on a stone middle of nowhere. You course at it and then you spot that there is encarved something on the stone. It says "Deserts are hot". So first thing that you might think is that "Who the f*ng smartass wrote that obvious thing?!?!". Without even thinking the wisdom of the stone, that there are cooler places than a desert on earth.... 

 

The history, happenings etc are like a "broken telephone" game, where you needed to go and squeeze the right side person hand in the signal you received from person at left. And then see how the code changed when it did go through the people. Or put different people to deliver message from mouth to mouth and see how the message turns different in the end.

 

The history of the GNU and Linux are very interesting as the idea of GNU/Linux is nothing more than propaganda. And it can be even traced back by using the GNU tools development changelogs where suddenly they changed the names of GNU and Linux to GNU/Linux, years after the popularisation of Linux. Suddenly RMS started to talk about GNU/Linux and the thing really did go viral. There were very few key people who were maintaining key programs and libraries, and they modified the codes and added new features, that weren't in the technical standards, only to get RMS egoistic believe fitted to the story!

 

And it is really a funny that the Open Source own spirit that RMS wanted to preserve, reveals the lie of the GNU/Linux and RMS!

But who cares when the popularity writes the history? Right? 

So everyone of us should try to keep the open mind and do some investing about the happenings instead just repeat (and alter) what others say.

 

But that is off-topic partially, but wanted just to write my own memo of that here too, that sometimes in the future someone might find this writing as well and get them thinking "What if...?" and that is crucial thing in human history. 

[Alfred]

 

10 minutes ago, paristo said:

We can all see this happening with the languages, that gets transformed and changed by the users, because laziness!

 

Most changes in language have nothing to do with laziness.

 

10 minutes ago, paristo said:

As I don't have time to go through my writing three or four times to correct spelling etc. But if I would, I would definetly get my writings shorter and better.

 

Oh, the irony!   

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, paristo said:

The education needs to happen with correct information from the start, or the whole learning process for the future is destroyed

Actually, we almost never have all the correct information from the start -- a big part of the learning process is (or at least should be) learning how to deal with that. Among other things, there will always be disagreements about what information is "correct" or if it is ever sufficiently complete to justify any particular conclusions drawn from it.

[Mark Ingram]

I'm going to close this thread, as we already have a rather large Linux thread going already.