Affinity products for Linux

[Renzatic]

7 hours ago, gnx said:

I think that the user interface can make or break a product. If the UI is not user-friendly it can become a significant problem.

That's the problem with most open source software, which is usually designed by programmers who's primary concern is functionality over all else.

The end result is something like Inkscape, which is arguably at least as capable as Designer for vector work, but its user interface makes for a much less compelling experience.

edit: though with that said, things have been improving tremendously on this front over the last couple of years. Linux in general is CONSIDERABLY nicer to look at, and easier to use than it was even just a couple of years ago.

[SrPx]

2 hours ago, Renzatic said:

That's the problem with most open source software, which is usually designed by programmers who's primary concern is functionality over all else.

The end result is something like Inkscape, which is arguably at least as capable as Designer for vector work, but its user interface makes for a much less compelling experience.

edit: though with that said, things have been improving tremendously on this front over the last couple of years. Linux in general is CONSIDERABLY nicer to look at, and easier to use than it was even just a couple of years ago.

And way more than 20 years ago.

[Snapseed]

On 9/17/2020 at 9:20 PM, msdobrescu said:

Do you know some tool working on Linux that offers a feature close to the Photoshop's boundary warp tool for panoramas? Who knows one?

Since l don't use Photoshop, l am afraid l cannot answer that question. I do know that Microsoft ICE (Windows) and Fotoxx (Linux) are very good at stitching photos together though. 

What l suggest you do is raise that question on a specialist forum such as DPreview where you're more likely to find a relevant answer. 

[msdobrescu]

19 hours ago, Snapseed said:

I do know that Microsoft ICE (Windows) and Fotoxx (Linux) are very good at stitching photos together though. 

By warping, I refer to this: http://kaiminghe.com/sig13/index.html.

I think MS ICE is able to perform this, but does not run under wine, or I couldn't make it run.

Sorry, I think Fotoxx is ages behind Hugin, which is almost what I need, except for the final touch, which is warping.

[Snapseed]

17 hours ago, msdobrescu said:

By warping, I reer to this: http://kaiminghe.com/sig13/index.html.

I think MS ICE is able to perform this, but does not run under wine, or I couldn't make it run.

Sorry, I think Fotoxx is ages behind Hugin, which is almost what I need, except for the final touch, which is warping.

In which case, you appear to need either Adobe Camera Raw 9.4 or later or Adobe Lightroom 6.4 or later. You can download the trial version of full CrossOver and see if those products work under CrossOver. If they do, then the next logical step is to buy the full version of CrossOver.

If that's not possible, then try those products in Windows in a virtual machine environment within Linux (VMware and VirtualBox are free for personal use).

[msdobrescu]

I have PS subscription already.

[Snapseed]

On 9/21/2020 at 12:22 PM, msdobrescu said:

"I have PS subscription already."

In which case, Victor Mhgh is your new friend ==> www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=YSIDfyxK6Ig&feature=youtu.be

(it does appear that it is indeed possible to use Adobe CC with Linux)

[jtriangle]

Seeing as affinity is very happy to hide all of the users clamoring for a linux version in this thread, I've copied my, now locked reply, below. 

If you want a no-nonsense experience, Ubuntu is probably the last distro I would consider. Sure its install base is large, it also comes with a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff, and, while its userbase is large, they're not as savvy, so, more tech support issues from users who just don't know what they're doing in general.

The play is to go with something more vanilla, like debian, or, something with a better userbase, like manjaro. Focusing on a single distro is a good move from a development standpoint, especially if you can open source a good portion of the code and let the community fix stuff when it breaks. Obviously all of the imaging algos would have to remain closed source, but, no reason things like gui/localization can't be supported directly by the community.

When the idea of supporting linux was brought up, it was suggested that it'd be $500k USD to develop. This was years ago, and, that seems like a high estimate either way, but, I do wish they'd consider that there will probably be a point when they can't afford not to develop a linux version. I'd guess that adobe has plans to do so, and many companies are moving away from microsoft, and those that aren't have two hangups, adobe and microsoft office. With office documents being well supported with online services now, and it's only a matter of time before O365 is 100% a web app, the real hangup is adobe products.
Being that adobe is something of a leviathan, they can't pivot like affinity can pivot, so, at the moment, affinity is uniquely poised to get ahead of the curve. If the real cost is $500k USD, that's only 10,000 installs, which given that adobe has ~300 million users onboarded into creative cloud, and with the growth of linux OS's, it really does make sense that they'd pull the trigger on this.

My worry is that they won't port it over to linux, adobe will, and they'll steadily lose market share until they're just another "remember that app, it was cool, back in the day" story. 

[Snapseed]

1 hour ago, jtriangle said:

Seeing as affinity is very happy to hide all of the users clamoring for a linux version in this thread, I've copied my, now locked reply, below. 

If you want a no-nonsense experience, Ubuntu is probably the last distro I would consider. Sure its install base is large, it also comes with a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff, and, while its userbase is large, they're not as savvy, so, more tech support issues from users who just don't know what they're doing in general.

The play is to go with something more vanilla, like debian, or, something with a better userbase, like manjaro. Focusing on a single distro is a good move from a development standpoint, especially if you can open source a good portion of the code and let the community fix stuff when it breaks. Obviously all of the imaging algos would have to remain closed source, but, no reason things like gui/localization can't be supported directly by the community.

When the idea of supporting linux was brought up, it was suggested that it'd be $500k USD to develop. This was years ago, and, that seems like a high estimate either way, but, I do wish they'd consider that there will probably be a point when they can't afford not to develop a linux version. I'd guess that adobe has plans to do so, and many companies are moving away from microsoft, and those that aren't have two hangups, adobe and microsoft office. With office documents being well supported with online services now, and it's only a matter of time before O365 is 100% a web app, the real hangup is adobe products.
Being that adobe is something of a leviathan, they can't pivot like affinity can pivot, so, at the moment, affinity is uniquely poised to get ahead of the curve. If the real cost is $500k USD, that's only 10,000 installs, which given that adobe has ~300 million users onboarded into creative cloud, and with the growth of linux OS's, it really does make sense that they'd pull the trigger on this.

My worry is that they won't port it over to linux, adobe will, and they'll steadily lose market share until they're just another "remember that app, it was cool, back in the day" story. 

I am not exactly sure what you're actually trying to get at, to be honest.

I'm a 100% Linux user and yet I do have a lot of sympathy for Serif's current position. In terms of staff (and probably revenue and spending money too) they are 100x smaller then the huge giant that is the Adobe corporation and that significantly limits what they can do.

In order to survive, Serif has to make money and, right now, that means developing their software products for existing known popular operating systems and that means the likes of Windows and macOS. Linux has to get more popular first before Serif will even consider porting over versions of their softwares over to Linux. Indeed, and if I recall correctly, they only ever used to make software for Windows.

In the meantime, if anyone reads this entire discussion from the beginning, they will find plenty of viable alternative options mentioned to the current range of Serif Affinity software products. If anyone still wants to make a difference then don't continue to whine on this forum but make more Linux converts instead to get that market share up.

Finally, if I were in Serif position's right now, I'd make almost exactly the same decisions as they have done although I'd have at least investigated whether it would be possible to see if the software products could work reasonably well with CrossOver/Wine.

 

[wonderings]

On 9/21/2020 at 4:32 PM, jtriangle said:

Seeing as affinity is very happy to hide all of the users clamoring for a linux version in this thread, I've copied my, now locked reply, below. 

If you want a no-nonsense experience, Ubuntu is probably the last distro I would consider. Sure its install base is large, it also comes with a whole bunch of unnecessary stuff, and, while its userbase is large, they're not as savvy, so, more tech support issues from users who just don't know what they're doing in general.

The play is to go with something more vanilla, like debian, or, something with a better userbase, like manjaro. Focusing on a single distro is a good move from a development standpoint, especially if you can open source a good portion of the code and let the community fix stuff when it breaks. Obviously all of the imaging algos would have to remain closed source, but, no reason things like gui/localization can't be supported directly by the community.

When the idea of supporting linux was brought up, it was suggested that it'd be $500k USD to develop. This was years ago, and, that seems like a high estimate either way, but, I do wish they'd consider that there will probably be a point when they can't afford not to develop a linux version. I'd guess that adobe has plans to do so, and many companies are moving away from microsoft, and those that aren't have two hangups, adobe and microsoft office. With office documents being well supported with online services now, and it's only a matter of time before O365 is 100% a web app, the real hangup is adobe products.
Being that adobe is something of a leviathan, they can't pivot like affinity can pivot, so, at the moment, affinity is uniquely poised to get ahead of the curve. If the real cost is $500k USD, that's only 10,000 installs, which given that adobe has ~300 million users onboarded into creative cloud, and with the growth of linux OS's, it really does make sense that they'd pull the trigger on this.

My worry is that they won't port it over to linux, adobe will, and they'll steadily lose market share until they're just another "remember that app, it was cool, back in the day" story. 

Adobe looked into it, I believe it was mentioned in this thread or the other Linux thread. Adobe opted out for the time being with Linux development. I don't know the reason why, but I am sure if they thought there was money to be made they would not have pulled back. This is just my assumption.

Not sure how many companies are looking to move into a new OS, train staff, most of which I would imagine are not text savvy. I know of zero companies that use Linux and I deal with a lot being in print, doing work for all sorts of industries in a high tech town. Linux is small compared to the rest and I think fits a certain niche market at the moment. The various distro's also make it appear more confusing (not sure if it actually is or not but the appearance is there) just as there was confusion when Windows had multiple versions of Windows Vista - Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate. The vast majority of computer users are not tech minded so the headaches that can go along with bringing in a new OS is most likely not worth it when Windows 10 works pretty well and simple for the most part compared to earlier versions. Adobe has also created a great eco system through their subscription. So if you are using their product, the standard, you have it easy when dealing with other design houses, print shops, etc, as you are all on the same software and even same version. This was never the case before the subscription came. Some places were up to date, others stayed back and only updated every couple of years. It could be a real mess. I don't think there is this gold mine that people seem to think there is with Linux at the moment and I don't think all that many people are willing to give up the good things about Adobe CC that they would notice if they left. 

[kilab]

hello,

All the cinema and TV industry are working on Linux ... all the big companies... I mean  with a lot of artist are on Linux ... nobody will build a huge team of artist managing a network on mac because too expensive or finding an IT crazy enough in broadcast industry to manage 300 computer network on windows ... Linux is really more consistent for those industries ... all that people are searching an alternative to Photoshop on linux ... there is a big gap ...

it is a nightmare for VFX companies to implement Photoshop in their pipeline ... nightmare as well to manage matte painters on other OS ... building 2D environment is fully part of that industry working with maya and nuke ... if you open that door, it will work obviously ...I can't imagine that if you come on Linux all the users won't jump on that ... I'm working in the cinema industry since 20 years  and I know if someone propose a real painting software like affinity on Linux quickly it will become a standard.

that is my feeling  ... after ...

thanks.

C.

[msdobrescu]

Hi, an interesting read, if it's true: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8764.

[wonderings]

On 10/6/2020 at 5:59 PM, kilab said:

hello,

All the cinema and TV industry are working on Linux ... all the big companies... I mean  with a lot of artist are on Linux ... nobody will build a huge team of artist managing a network on mac because too expensive or finding an IT crazy enough in broadcast industry to manage 300 computer network on windows ... Linux is really more consistent for those industries ... all that people are searching an alternative to Photoshop on linux ... there is a big gap ...

it is a nightmare for VFX companies to implement Photoshop in their pipeline ... nightmare as well to manage matte painters on other OS ... building 2D environment is fully part of that industry working with maya and nuke ... if you open that door, it will work obviously ...I can't imagine that if you come on Linux all the users won't jump on that ... I'm working in the cinema industry since 20 years  and I know if someone propose a real painting software like affinity on Linux quickly it will become a standard.

that is my feeling  ... after ...

thanks.

C.

I would be curious to know the size of market for Photos/Photoshop and Designer/Illustrator is for movie and tv use. I am guessing it is a niche market still which is why Adobe and Serif have not ventured down that road. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but no real numbers to back it up. Your feeling that something will be a great seller or standard is just that, a feeling. Could it be true? Yes, could it not be true, yes as well. 

If the large production houses for movies and tv are using Linux then I would imagine they have solutions already for their needs. Are you saying the needs are not being met? Or you just want a cheap alternative? And if the needs are being met they are obviously using more than just Linux. 

[jtriangle]

The big production houses are all using proprietary software that they've had written for their uses. That, and big production houses are a tiny market because there's not that many of them.
The real money for affinity is in the average joes who have enough of a brain to not want to get tied into the Adobe Serfdom Pay Per Month plan. That's a growing market of tech-savvy people, and tech savvy people tend to at least know about linux, and the ones that have the ability to do so, run it as their main OS.

Aside from that, you have your average corporate market, who shells out big money for adobe products. They're all pining for a viable alternative to the subscription model, but there isn't one at the moment. Many corporate environments are using linux workstations where they can, because the licensing is cheaper and it's overall a better choice for a reliable managed workstation.

The only thing realistically keeping Linux from being the OS of choice in most cases is the lack of microsoft office, and the lack of a viable alternative to Adobe's products. Office alternatives are getting close, and 3rd party PDF management is getting close, but there's nothing even remotely close on the creative side of things. Sooner or later Adobe is going to get on board, and once they do, Affinity is back in the same boat as it is now, where they're competing with a huge, well known company.


If affinity doesn't think it can sell 10,000 licenses to cover the cost of porting to linux, that's their call. It seems fairly nominal to me, but perhaps their install base is much smaller than I'd imagine, or their marketing is much less effective than I'd imagine.

[msdobrescu]

@wonderings, you are the Antilinux! HA HA HA!!! Sorry for the bad joke, no hurt intended!

[wonderings]

16 hours ago, msdobrescu said:

@wonderings, you are the Antilinux! HA HA HA!!! Sorry for the bad joke, no hurt intended!

I am not against Linux, I just try to think rationally and realistically. 

 

16 hours ago, jtriangle said:

The big production houses are all using proprietary software that they've had written for their uses. That, and big production houses are a tiny market because there's not that many of them.
The real money for affinity is in the average joes who have enough of a brain to not want to get tied into the Adobe Serfdom Pay Per Month plan. That's a growing market of tech-savvy people, and tech savvy people tend to at least know about linux, and the ones that have the ability to do so, run it as their main OS.

Aside from that, you have your average corporate market, who shells out big money for adobe products. They're all pining for a viable alternative to the subscription model, but there isn't one at the moment. Many corporate environments are using linux workstations where they can, because the licensing is cheaper and it's overall a better choice for a reliable managed workstation.

The only thing realistically keeping Linux from being the OS of choice in most cases is the lack of microsoft office, and the lack of a viable alternative to Adobe's products. Office alternatives are getting close, and 3rd party PDF management is getting close, but there's nothing even remotely close on the creative side of things. Sooner or later Adobe is going to get on board, and once they do, Affinity is back in the same boat as it is now, where they're competing with a huge, well known company.


If affinity doesn't think it can sell 10,000 licenses to cover the cost of porting to linux, that's their call. It seems fairly nominal to me, but perhaps their install base is much smaller than I'd imagine, or their marketing is much less effective than I'd imagine.

If big production houses have their own software why would they want to move to something else? Why would they move to an application that may or may not do what they need when they know they have software that does it for them already?

You are missing some serious pro's to Adobe's subscription plan, and it is one that saves so many headaches. There is no fragmentation anymore, everyone, or virtually everyone is on Adobe CC which means they all are running on the same thing. There headaches this solves are huge and anyone who has been in the business for a while will understand this. Some companies may want to ditch Adobe to save a few dollars every month but if they are working with anyone else and not just their own people they will be opening themselves up to problems and issues that will take time to resolve, and we all know time is money.

Affinity does not have these issues yet because it is in Version 1. After a few versions are released it will be interesting to see how they handle this, if at all. If Affinity were to become a mainstream application they are going to run into this. Not everyone will upgrade, you will need to work with someone else files and they will not open on yours because you are behind. Collaboration will be a nightmare. 

The cost of switching companies over to Linux is high as well, you now have to teach an entire user base how to use a new OS and this will definitely have a strain on IT. Now this may be worth it in the long run when people know how to use the OS and the problems go down. I know that was the case for me when I moved all our computers away from Windows. The headaches it created were instantly gone with a Mac OS environment. Now I did have things to do in getting people used to a new OS, but it was pretty simple. Maybe that would be the case with Linux, I am thinking it would not be though as Mac OS is far more mainstream. 

[msdobrescu]

@wonderings, I'm just kidding!

[Squirrel Logic]

On 10/8/2020 at 11:35 AM, wonderings said:

If big production houses have their own software why would they want to move to something else?

Because it is more cost-effective to purchase than to develop.

Several years ago when I asked people who work at animation studios that run Linux what software they used for image editing and digital painting, they said GIMP. When I asked her how they've been managing using GIMP for their texturing work, she said that it gets the job done. I have heard about studios using Photoshop CS5 and WINE when they didn't want to use GIMP. For concept art and texturing, Photoshop hasn't changed much since then.

On 10/8/2020 at 11:35 AM, wonderings said:

There is no fragmentation anymore, everyone, or virtually everyone is on Adobe CC which means they all are running on the same thing. There headaches this solves are huge and anyone who has been in the business for a while will understand this.

There's still fragmentation, even with Creative Cloud. I've had machines that were running older versions of Windows that Adobe products would refuse to install on because they were no longer supported. On MacOS we had to roll back a couple of times on new updates while the Windows machines ran the new versions of the software.

The fragmentation you are describing is making sure everyone is using the most recent version of the software. With the realities of bad software updates aside, Adobe CC forces it by making everyone pay in advance for the upgrade. The Creative Cloud license validation and updater app is a separate technology that any software company can implement. That is not a feature exclusive to subscription software.

Even without such software, a company with an IT department will be running an RMM to remotely patch and update 3rd-party software on employee's computers. So perhaps the best use-case for the CC license validation and updater app is for small businesses that don't use an RMM. But small businesses and freelancers are the best candidates for being okay with not having their software up-to-date all the time.

[msdobrescu]

On 9/21/2020 at 7:27 PM, Snapseed said:

In which case, Victor Mhgh is your new friend ==> www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=YSIDfyxK6Ig&feature=youtu.be

(it does appear that it is indeed possible to use Adobe CC with Linux)

I am not sure, I have analyzed the scripts and I see them downloading stuff from file sharing sources, not from reliable or official ones. I don't trust it!

[Pariah73]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I've used Linux for over 20 years. I can tell you that the Linux so-called community is in general hostile. "They", whoever feels self-appointed enough on the day, will nitpick until the cows come home about how bad and how shoddy and how lacking any product which is brought to Linux. "They" cannot write such software themselves, of course. But they can nitpick. No matter how good such software is, "they" will have a bone to pick. If Affinity does not port any of their products to Linux, they will not "lose market share", they will instead not gain a tiny bit of market share. I have been waiting for over two decades for the "year of the Linux desktop", and it is still not here. 

Why would you recommend the blinkered Debian over the more realistic Ubuntu? I have used both. It's kind of funny for about 4 seconds using Iceweasel instead of Firefox. Hey, let's use all the Firefox code base, but be pedantic enough to strip out trademarks. But when it comes to drivers, let's talk Nvidia. Oooo the Debian people don't like proprietary drivers. So they have a wiki page on how to install the good, working, full-featured binary drivers. But they hold their noses like some latter day Puritans of the thought of making it easy for Debian users. The last distribution of Linux a new user should consider, particularly somebody not acquainted with UNIX, is Debian. Just. Don't. Do. It.

Don't accuse me of not liking or misunderstanding Linux. Quite the opposite it true. I understand it all too well. And that means understanding the what appears to me to be brain dead stupid decisions the "maintainers" sometimes make. I still remember looking aghast at Debian and its Exim configuration file. The whole point of the Exim config file was that it was easy to read in comparison to sendmail.cf. Debian split it up the Exim config file into about 70 files. The people who decided this was "a good thing" don't understand what they are doing.

I would much prefer Affinity work on improving their products on the existing platforms, rather than diverting attention to something which very very few people want. Linux is OK on the server, where you effectively run certain applications. On the desktop it's a niche thing.

 

The only member of the Linux community who is being hostile here is..well, you, at the moment. You accuse others of holding their noses like some latter day Puritans yet talk about the 'maintainers' being brain dead.  That is not very nice.  My first Linux distro was Debian, suggested by a site that asked all kinds of questions to match you up to a distro they thought would be great for first timers. I had a great time with Debian, learned a ton about Linux in the process and still prefer Debian based distros overall.  I absolutely hope one of the amazing members of this community who use Linux can figure this out. The only reason I have Windows is because I can't afford a Mac and the support isn't there for Linux yet.  Like everything else about Linux, it's a great learning process and it's important to make sure Serif at least knows of our interest, and there are LOTS of us. It never hurts to keep trying because at some point, they just might do it.  Fingers crossed!  (and someone on here was close to figuring it out, so maybe someone else can finish what they started)

**Create something great today!**

[Redsandro]

On 10/22/2020 at 6:28 PM, LondonSquirrel said:

Why would you recommend the blinkered Debian over the more realistic Ubuntu? I have used both. It's kind of funny for about 4 seconds using Iceweasel instead of Firefox. Hey, let's use all the Firefox code base, but be pedantic enough to strip out trademarks. But when it comes to drivers, let's talk Nvidia. Oooo the Debian people don't like proprietary drivers. So they have a wiki page on how to install the good, working, full-featured binary drivers. But they hold their noses like some latter day Puritans of the thought of making it easy for Debian users. The last distribution of Linux a new user should consider, particularly somebody not acquainted with UNIX, is Debian. Just. Don't. Do. It.

 

"brain dead stupid decisions"

 

You sound a bit salty. Please be careful with your interpretation of the facts when preaching to an audience. Like it or not, Debian has ideals of freedom for users in the broadest sense of the word. It was the Mozilla Corporation - not Debian - that demanded Debian stopped making changes to the (open source) source code of Firefox that would integrate Firefox better with Debian. So Debian had to re-brand for legal reasons in order to retain their freedom to make changes to the code.

Also note that this issue is almost 15 years old, as is perhaps your experience with Debian. The Mozilla Corporation saw that they weren't being helpful in the open source community while claiming to be a part of it, so Mozilla repealed the demand almost 5 years ago. Firefox ESR has been available in the current stable branch ever since, and the non-ESR version will be available after the ESR life cycle.

Personally I think vanilla Debian isn't a good desktop choice apart from a specific audience. People usually take a Debian-based derivative such as LMDE. Debian even recommends using a Debian derivative in stead of pure Debian on their website. The power of Debian's conservative approach to changes is that it's one of the most stable distros out there. You do know that Ubuntu is a Debian derivative directly based on Debian-testing, right?

So I guess the suggestion for Debian is based more on the idea that targeting Debian-testing targets the same foundation that is used for Crunchbang, Deepin, Devuan, Kali Linux, Knoppix, LMDE, PureOS, SolusOS, SteamOS, Ubuntu and more.

[jtriangle]

As an arch user, I'd be more than happy to have a SteamOS like distro to run Affinity in, and that's probably a viable course of action because they'd have absolute control over the OS out of the box.

Also, for clarity, Affiniti themselves estimated that it'd be $500k to port it over. Not zero money, but, that's only around 10k licenses to break even at the current pricing. My assumption is that the current install base is much, much larger than 10,000 users. They could likely also hedge that a little by offering an enterprise support tier for bigger money.

The fact is, the only option on Linux being half-speed adobeCC is a piss poor one. Sure it comes cracked out of the box, but it is very slow. I've used it, it's terrible, and I have an AMD GPU, which normally works fine for steam/proton. What they're looking at is a smaller market, but one that would have zero options if it weren't for Affinity.

[SomeDev]

22 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

There's not. That's what Linux people have been saying for 20 years. If the market was really large enough, you would see far more commercial software on Linux. There is some, but it is insignificant in comparison to that available on Mac or Windows. And that's what we are talking about here: a company (Affinity) investing its time and money with the intent to make a return on that.

Taking the first result I find when looking for this year's desktop share:

https://www.debugpoint.com/2020/07/linux-desktop-market-share-peaked-to-all-time-high-in-june/

Windows: 86.6%, Mac: 9.2%, Linux: 3.6%.

Why would Affinity waste its time and resources on such a small POTENTIAL market? Not everyone using Linux would buy Affinity.

As stated, I've been in the Linux world for more than 20 years. I've heard all the arguments before, and they are the same arguments which keep coming round. The chicken and the egg. If only xyz company would release their product for Linux... But there are a lot of xyz companies on that list.

I stand by my comments about some of the stupid decisions that the distro maintainers have made over the years. I am not alone in this - the mailing groups are full of contrary opinions. I used to follow them, but grew bored. Instead I wanted to do stuff instead of being involved in arguments over why systemd is better than some other init system. But people did and do (in the Linux world) expend plenty of hot air about this sort of thing all the time.

I would prefer that Affinity work to improve its products with additional features, bug fixes, etc, rather than take on the task of another platform. Jeez, if Affinity did decide to port to Linux, there would be arguments (from the Linux community) about using GTK or QT or wx or whatever. I have no idea what Affinity currently uses (they may even have written their own). But Linux is a minefield for this sort of pointless argument which just gets in the way of actually doing stuff.

 

It had been explained here multiple times that the actual total of users of an OS doesn't matter as much as how many of those users are possible customers, if you take Windows as a example it has a the largest market but there are less users who need creative products in comparation to Mac. 

If Affinity wants to enter the linux market they could find potential customers in the VFX and web development industry since those users are often on Linux and there is not good comercial equivalent to Affinity or Adobe that can be use to a professional level. If those potential users justify the cost of doing a port is Affinity research team to determine that. 

[SomeDev]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Do not confuse the installed Linux base, which is certainly large enough, with the number of people who would actually spend money. That is why I wrote the word POTENTIAL in capital letters. To some people, quite a few people in the Linux world actually, spending money on commercial software is abhorrent. 

If that last things was true, there were not commercial software on linux at all, and there multiple big companies who do, like Autodesk and Jetbeans. 

[jtriangle]

There were 11 million PC's sold in the USA during Q1 2020, so, that's 396K linux installs. Affinity needs 10,000 of them to buy software to break even. 
Again, that's only PC's sold this year, and only in the US, using your numbers.

 

By your logic, they shouldn't bother with OSX users either, because it's wasted money when you could just write windows software. Windows is the overwhelming majority of the market afterall, so, according to what you're saying, Affinity should discontinue support for OSX, because it's only 9.6% of the market. Totally not worth it.


Or, perhaps it's not the 80's anymore, your greybeard perspective is clouded at best, and there's a large enough market on any platform to make plenty of profit from, if you bother to build it.