Affinity for Linux

[Vex]

2 minutes ago, m.vlad said:

PSD export still isn't good since text gets rasterized. but this is a talk for another time.

Just curious - why not PDF? I ask because PDF export preserves text fidelity.

[m.vlad]

1 minute ago, ClairelyClaire said:

Just curious - why not PDF? I ask because PDF export preserves text fidelity.

Does it preserve text lines? Last time I tried it as an in-between, the text lines were split into different layers. Anyway I think this is going a bit off topic. Also it doesn't work if someone is asking for psd files specifically.

[Vex]

 

18 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In the vector, raster, and publishing world it's very different. We have the ubiquitous PSD, AI, and Indd formats, all of which are closed. I have no idea what the actually licensing of these formats entails, but it is the fact that the formats themselves are closed which makes them tricky to adopt. If Affinity comes up with a superb new idea, which Adobe does not, it would likely not be able to incorporate it into PSD files.

Vectors have a few standardized formats now (SVG and EPS) that preserve most, if not all, fidelity.

Affinity might find itself in a good position to promote new standard formats...

[wonderings]

1 hour ago, ClairelyClaire said:

Because the home user is willing to give them money if the price is right, and there's precious little reason to not offer an affordable option.

To be super clear here: I really am impressed so far with Affinity's products. The use of Qt instead of native UI chrome is sort of a hindrance (AFAIK AppleScript can't interact with the UI very much), but it definitely gives Adobe's apps a run for their money for a lot of stuff (not everything...I'm still learning).

Optimally, there should be competition rather than monolithic platforms that keep you closely tied to a single company's ecosystem in perpetuity. Standard formats are awesome and make things exchangeable between platforms. In the vector world, SVG and EPS are both good alternatives that allow you preserve most fidelity and maintain portability between apps and platforms.

There isn't a similar format for desktop publishing software like InDesign and Publisher. That's probably been one of the biggest hindrances.

Honestly, a format that builds on EPUB might make the most sense - something that uses HTML and CSS on the backend (which makes it absurdly easy to script an entire layout in your chosen language), but adds more special sauce to do page layouts and physical units (i.e. mm and inch). Pack all that up into an archive format (which what EPUB does), and you've got yourself a portable layout/publishing format.

Obviously Adobe wants you to use their formats, but they've been forced by the industry to support a wide variety of portable/standardized vector formats, because those formats already exist. If the same were to be possible with Photoshop/APhoto and InDesign/APub, portability between Adobe and Affinity might be more feasible.

Standard formats only work if all the applications opening the standard format can do the same thing. If I create in Indesign and save as an IDML file which is more open relatively speaking, it does not change anything when Publisher cannot open the IDML file in the same way as Indesign. Yes it will open that IDML file but it will not be correct. So the standard does not really solve the problem. Graphics are complex and this is well beyond basic formatting of text. You would need to ensure all applications that can work with this standard format all offer the same feature set in order to open the files correctly. If not it may open some fine and others not, you would be left in a state of all ways needing to check that nothing went wonky when originally creating in Publisher and the next person opening in Indesign. Headaches are still there and will always be there. A standard of software, the tool itself makes life much much simpler knowing the person before is working with the same tools I am and I can thus continue to work know my tools created the project in the first place. 

[wonderings]

26 minutes ago, ClairelyClaire said:

 

Vectors have a few standardized formats now (SVG and EPS) that preserve most, if not all, fidelity.

Affinity might find itself in a good position to promote new standard formats...

Affinity is far more closed off than Adobe. Is there any software you can use a native Affinity file with? Can you drop a designer or photos file in a video editing app or an office app like Word? On the other hand I can use native PSD and AI files in various applications from video editing to presentation tools and apps like Microsoft Word. Is there any indication from Affinity that they want to be a standard? If so they would need to start opening things up themselves.

[Vex]

2 hours ago, wonderings said:

Affinity is far more closed off than Adobe. Is there any software you can use a native Affinity file with? Can you drop a designer or photos file in a video editing app or an office app like Word? On the other hand I can use native PSD and AI files in various applications from video editing to presentation tools and apps like Microsoft Word. Is there any indication from Affinity that they want to be a standard? If so they would need to start opening things up themselves.

No, I'm not suggesting there's any indication they'd do this.

I'm just suggesting that as the "underdog" in the industry (anyone who isn't Adobe and maybe Corel), introducing a new standard could be a big deal for Affinity.

We need a standard - that much I think is objective fact. The inability to transfer portable digital masters from one platform to another is ridiculous, in that there's no good technological reason for it. Whomever hits the finish line first on some kind of actual standard will have far more influence over its development and evolution, and I think it's inevitable that there will be a standard at some point.

[wonderings]

15 hours ago, ClairelyClaire said:

No, I'm not suggesting there's any indication they'd do this.

I'm just suggesting that as the "underdog" in the industry (anyone who isn't Adobe and maybe Corel), introducing a new standard could be a big deal for Affinity.

We need a standard - that much I think is objective fact. The inability to transfer portable digital masters from one platform to another is ridiculous, in that there's no good technological reason for it. Whomever hits the finish line first on some kind of actual standard will have far more influence over its development and evolution, and I think it's inevitable that there will be a standard at some point.

We have a standard and for that standard to work well you need to use software that can handle what the program that created that file is capable of. Affinity is not that at the moment and not sure it will ever be unless they match feature for feature. You can setup something in Microsoft Word using a feature that only Word has. Doc files are pretty standard I would say but if Open Office cannot do what you did in Word then you are going to have issues opening in Open Office. Standard formats only work if every application that can work with that standard all match feature for feature. If you want to work with people using Adobe the best simplest way is to use Adobe. Nothing Affinity can do will make it a flawless and seamless option to collaborate between 2 pieces of software that work differently and offer different features and some similar features. 

[m.vlad]

Just now, wonderings said:

We have a standard and for that standard to work well you need to use software that can handle what the program that created that file is capable of. Affinity is not that at the moment and not sure it will ever be unless they match feature for feature. You can setup something in Microsoft Word using a feature that only Word has. Doc files are pretty standard I would say but if Open Office cannot do what you did in Word then you are going to have issues opening in Open Office. Standard formats only work if every application that can work with that standard all match feature for feature. If you want to work with people using Adobe the best simplest way is to use Adobe. Nothing Affinity can do will make it a flawless and seamless option to collaborate between 2 pieces of software that work differently and offer different features and some similar features.

you could just have stuff using proprietary features that aren't part of the format be packaged, kind of like smart layers, and if you want to edit it you can either have your app approximate the results or rasterize it. So you have a standard carriage format with maybe 80% standardized features and 20% flavours from each software (For example, warping text in illustrator and saving in this format would mean in affinity you can either expand the warped text or rasterize it, since affinity doesn't support vector warp)

[aronkvh]

Has anyone tried with DarlingHQ? I'd imagine it would be easier to support (eventually) sine MacOS is also Unix-based.

[Snapseed]

23 hours ago, aronkvh said:

Has anyone tried with DarlingHQ? I'd imagine it would be easier to support (eventually) sine MacOS is also Unix-based.

Unfortunately, Darling isn't nearly as advanced as Wine is as a project. Running macOS command line only apps is now possible on Linux and they're working on simple graphical user interface apps now but nothing like as complex as Affinity Photo, etc yet (that is possibly years away, if ever).

[delpi767]

I'd buy all three of your products at $100 each.

I use Affinity, Davinci Resolve and PHPStorm almost exclusively.  Davinci and PHPStorm on Ubuntu.

Affinity products are the only thing keeping a windows machine here.

[Snapseed]

On 5/18/2021 at 6:37 PM, delpi767 said:

I'd buy all three of your products at $100 each.

I use Affinity, Davinci Resolve and PHPStorm almost exclusively.  Davinci and PHPStorm on Ubuntu.

Affinity products are the only thing keeping a windows machine here.

I would quite happily settle for the Affinity range of products, particularly Affinity Photo, just running well with Wine/Crossover. The different developers behind the PhotoScape, PhotoLine and Sagelight image editors all make the effort to ensure that their softwares run well with Wine/Crossover so that Linux users are not left out.

[ewwn]

Surely this has been mentioned in the past 45 pages, but I think another issue is the fact that a large amount of linux users are hard set on FOSS software (The reason many of them switched!). That's not to say there is not a chunk of people looking for this (1000 posts in this thread!) but it's even smaller than at face value.

[Michael Tunnell]

21 minutes ago, ewwn said:

Surely this has been mentioned in the past 45 pages, but I think another issue is the fact that a large amount of linux users are hard set on FOSS software (The reason many of them switched!). That's not to say there is not a chunk of people looking for this (1000 posts in this thread!) but it's even smaller than at face value.

This is just an assumption based on no clear data. Linux is just a better platform for a variety of reasons but the drastically lower resources is a huge piece of why people switch over. You can save wasted resources from Windows and thus get better FPS in games and better rendering in various tools. The FOSS concept is not even known by a lot of people until after they switch to Linux. I switched to Linux prior to learning what the philosophy was for example.

There are many people who also want to switch to Linux but the only thing holding them back is needing a professional graphics tool. I know many many designers who are in that position. It's just a Catch 22.

Interestingly enough, the low resource need is a big reason why some industries use Linux heavily, take Disney for example. Disney uses Red Hat in their animation studios and computer graphics studios because it offers so much flexibility and lowers complex render times. If Disney sees the value for paying for Linux why would people think Linux is not viable?

There are people who want to use Linux but dont because they need specific programs and if they had an alternative they would use Linux. There are people who use it for FOSS and a lot who don't. I have been using Linux for over 20 years and I do not have a FOSS only requirement . . . and a lot of people are in my pragmatist position as well. I like the philosophy of Open Source but that doesn't mean its the only viable option to be successful on Linux. Linux is a very powerful OS and is arguably the best OS engineering of all the OS available but for some reason Desktop Linux just continues to lose where in literally every other form of computing on the planet, Linux is the dominant force by a lot.

Anyway, I already presented a way Serif could end this debate and definitively find out if Linux could be a viable option or not but nothing has come from it. Maybe some day, I wont be holding my breath for this but maybe someday Serif will realize there is a market willing to pay.

[m.vlad]

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Server side, yes, where it has displaced UNIX. On the desktop, no.

The better platform doesn't always win when competing with giants like Microsoft and Apple. They have licensing deals in place and paid promotion to the extent where alternatives cannot compete.

 

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I have heard this sort of argument for about 20 years now. If only Linux had a good office suite. If only it had a good database. If only it had this that and the other.

But it did get a good office suite, and it's one of the reasons why linux is a valid alternative for productivity reasons to the others. It's also how chromebooks can be actually usable machines when all they are is a linux based OS with a browser, deep google integration and access to the google office suite alternative. Linux is a competent competitor in all fields except graphic design.

 

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

No. There are several things:

1. Lower resource needs than a GUI operating system.
2. The licensing cost. Use CentOS, it's a RedHat clone and it's free. (Don't tell me about the current woes with CentOS, I know).
3. Ease of management of hundreds/thousands of machines is far easier by command line than it is using GUI tools.

1. You know linux is also a GUI operating system right? I'm not even sure what you mean by this terminology - all operating systems have the back end, which is just code, and the front end - the GUI. All operating systems use this combination, there's no other way to do it. Linux can just be used without the later. That doesn't mean that people don't use GUIs however, and considering lately with Steam's proton opening a lot of people up to the option of using a linux OS as their main OS distros have been getting more popular.

2. I doubt big companies give two shits about the cost of windows licenses. It is most likely the performance benefit that lets them output stuff faster that is the deciding factor, not licenses.

3. That's just because the windows tools (can't speak for MacOS as I've only used it for a couple of hours) aren't good enough. it's more of a failure of windows than a success of linux.

 

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

See my point above negating this argument. Or perhaps it's agreeing with this argument. It will always be there.

How does the previous statement negate this argument? You're arguing this will happen ad infinitum on the basis of it happening before, but chromebook's existence and popularity is proof enough that people didn't need MS Office specifically and they can do just fine with alternatives so they switched to a chromebook.

 

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Very dubious statement. There is a lot of extremely gnarly code in the Linux kernel - I've seen it. By way of comparison I point you to this link, an article written 11 years ago, comparing scheduling in the Linux kernel with the Solaris kernel: https://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2010/10/other-schedulers-illumos.html. Things have changed in the last 11 years, but there is still lots of really ugly code in the Linux kernel.

Arguably every OS will have "ugly code". If you think something in the kernel code is truly bad you're free to suggest an improvement. Try doing that with Microsoft or Apple when you do find an issue. The statement was "of the OS available", not the best OS that will ever be.

 

37 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Linux on the desktop is a pain. It's not straightforward for people used to Macs and Windows machines. I've used various UNIX OSs for 25 years. Your grandma is not ready for the horrors of apt-get, yum, or any other nasty incantation of a packet manager.

It's very much getting there. Distros like Deepin and Elementary OS are designed with the thought you'll be using their app store instead of running terminal commands (though you can do that just fine as well). Even Pop OS, one of the more popular distros at the moment, especially for gaming folk, has forked the Elementary OS app store.

Also I'm not sure why grandmas are into graphic design, but go get them grandma!

[Michael Tunnell]

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Server side, yes, where it has displaced UNIX. On the desktop, no. 

Not just Servers. like I said, it is the dominant OS for everything. Embedded, Supercomputers, Mobile (Android is powered by Linux), and so on. Desktop is only limited by availability of applications.

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I have heard this sort of argument for about 20 years now. If only Linux had a good office suite. If only it had a good database. If only it had this that and the other. 

Because its true. No one looks at Windows and thinks "well this is engineering perfection". It is always "I need this specific app that is only on Windows or Mac". Windows has nothing to write home about other than it happens to have the widest userbase and thus has the widest catalog of apps. Its not like Windows earned that status, Microsoft paid for it with exclusive deals and institution lock-ins.
 

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

No. There are several things:

1. Lower resource needs than a GUI operating system.
2. The licensing cost. Use CentOS, it's a RedHat clone and it's free. (Don't tell me about the current woes with CentOS, I know). 
3. Ease of management of hundreds/thousands of machines is far easier by command line than it is using GUI tools.

Low resource needs hardly come into the equation when you are running thousands of machines.

1. what? Linux has GUI, its not just a server system. Do you think Linux requires command line to use it?
   1. Linux is lower resources with GUI as well. Every single GUI in Linux is lower resource usage than Windows even the heaviest of Linux GUIs is still MUCH lighter than Windows.
   2. Storage is also a factor of waste too such as Windows requiring 40GB of space in order to just install it. Linux distros only need around 8GB to 10GB to install.
2. Licensing cost is only for Enterprise. All of the desktop options from the big companies are free. Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE . . . are all free (gratis) thus zero licensing cost. They make money from Enterprise so desktop users can get it without cost.
3. Yes management of hundreds/thousands of machines is easier on Linux but you dont need command line for that either. There are many GUI tools for Linux that let you do that very easily compared to Windows tools.
   1. That doesnt change anything related to resources though. A lot of people use Linux as a GUI desktop not related to automation or management of a huge set. This is another dismissive assumption.

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Low resource needs hardly come into the equation when you are running thousands of machines.

This is an assumption based on no data. I admit I also did that though so I guess you could say equally weak.

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

See my point above negating this argument. Or perhaps it's agreeing with this argument. It will always be there. 

Your point negated nothing. It is obvious that app catalog is a factor . . . and if you missed it, that's the point of this thread. To help Serif see why being a part of the catalog building is valuable to them. The moment Adobe moves to Linux, Affinity will be irrelevant and I will cease to care if it supports Linux or not. People have argued if Adobe doesnt why should Serif and obviously thats why they should. If Linux had no future why would Valve spend $$ Millions to make Linux Gaming a feasible alternative to Windows gaming? It requires someone to try something and it either works or it doesnt. For Valve it has worked, gaming on Linux has increased from basically zero before Value to millions of gamers thanks to Valve.

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Very dubious statement. There is a lot of extremely gnarly code in the Linux kernel - I've seen it. By way of comparison I point you to this link, an article written 11 years ago, comparing scheduling in the Linux kernel with the Solaris kernel: https://ck-hack.blogspot.com/2010/10/other-schedulers-illumos.html. Things have changed in the last 11 years, but there is still lots of really ugly code in the Linux kernel.

Really? You are using the opinion of someone promoting Solaris (an Oracle product) as a way to prove Linux isnt good enough?

Linux has the argument of the best because of its growth and importance while also being better than Windows and Mac engineering. Its not dubious. What is dubious is you trying to negate my point about Linux importance using something that contradicts your own stance. You think Linux being a smaller marketshare means no one should care so you try to negate my point by using an OS with an even smaller marketshare? That seems a bit of a weird tactic. Plus Solaris has its own issues just like any software does.

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Yes, because as a desktop it is not very good. One of the reasons is the lack of a really usable standard APIs for desktop work. They just don't exist.

Based on what do you say this? Qt yes. also .NET/C# and Flutter work on Linux as well. What exactly is missing that is a necessity in your mind? Side note: how is this related to Affinity line? On this forum, the only thing that matters is discussing the ease of development for Affinity . . . not the landscape of app development entirely.

 

54 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Linux on the desktop is a pain. It's not straightforward for people used to Macs and Windows machines. I've used various UNIX OSs for 25 years. Your grandma is not ready for the horrors of apt-get, yum, or any other nasty incantation of a packet manager.

Mac is a UNIX OS so its weird that you would use that term as a way to negate validity. Desktop Linux is not a pain and yes I do have people using Linux that are grandmas. The people in their 70s and 80s that I know using Linux love it because they don't have to deal with any Windows nonsense and they dont have to do anything with yum, or apt-get or any other command line stuff because command line is not a necessity that you think it is. I mean apt-get is not even used anymore on Ubuntu or Debian and it hasn't been for years, your info is very very dated.

[m.vlad]

15 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In response to m.vlad and Michael Tunnell, Linux on the desktop is very poor in comparison to Windows and MacOS. Very few people are crying out for good graphics tools on Linux. Those that do, and have done for the last 20+ years for this app and that app, significantly overestimate their numbers.

The vocal part of a group will always be the minority. There will always be people that think of the same issue but don't actually go and voice it. Hence the entire reason people have been asking for some sort of kickstarter so that people can put their money where their mouth is. a kickstarter would also be easily shareable and could be covered by youtube channels and blogs so it gets to the people who aren't vocal.

 

15 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If there was a viable graphics market on Linux, Adobe would be there. This supposed market of the Linux desktop simply does not exist. For Affinity to devote time, money, and resources to making Linux versions of their apps would be a waste of money.

We don't know why adobe isn't porting their apps. I could equally say "their portfolio is too large and their current profit margin is good enough for them" or "they don't benefit from a core code because all of their apps are built different", or even "They're ok with the current WINE portability of their apps" but that's all hearsay. All we actually know is that they said they won't do it.

 

15 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It isn't just graphics software, it's all software on the Linux desktop. Take a look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proprietary_software_for_Linux. One wiki page proudly lists proprietary software for Linux. I don't suppose it is complete, but ONE PAGE... And quite a few items listed are shown as discontinued.

Self fulfilling prophecy. You're saying a proprietary app should not be released on linux because there aren't "enough" proprietary apps. Even if there were similar pages for windows and macos, i'm not sure you would use even a quarter of the ones on their list, so are you just looking for a ton of apps for no reason? Well just run an android emulator on it, you'll get access to tons of bloat!

anyway I don't see why this matters. Why does quantity matter in this argument? Just looking at the fact that the big VFX companies use linux, or that blackmagic is still selling their apps on linux, considering they're in the same visual industry, is a stronger argument than linking a list of proprietary apps. Also such a list doesn't factor in apps that work via electron (such as figma, a UI design solution) which are proprietary but not "released" on linux.

 

15 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So please stop pretending this market exists and Affinity can take over the world if only they would make versions available for Linux. I've heard it all before. It's nonsense.

And how did you arrive to this conclusion when all you've been saying is conjecture and dismissing what the others are saying?

[m.vlad]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Err, it shows whether a market is viable.

Because I've heard it all before. It's the same argument over and over and over and over. And it is nonsense. My 'conjecture' as you put it is 'reality'. The 'year of the Linux desktop' is a meme. I just did a quick search for it. So 2020 was going to be the 'year of the Linux desktop' according to this dude.

And this delusional post for 2019:

I've heard it all before. It goes back years years. I can't remember when I first heard it.

Making the graphic design sector be fully viable on linux is very different from "the year of linux" thing. Affinity is definitely not the last gear to making linux boom and multiply its userbase by 10x. We're just talking about the people who need a graphic design software, be it VFX artists, graphic designers who want to switch to linux or smaller businesses who'd rather get Affinity on a free OS rather than pay for adobe on windows. We're talking about very different goals here.

[Michael Tunnell]

29 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In response to m.vlad and Michael Tunnell, Linux on the desktop is very poor in comparison to Windows and MacOS. Very few people are crying out for good graphics tools on Linux. Those that do, and have done for the last 20+ years for this app and that app, significantly overestimate their numbers. 

If there was a viable graphics market on Linux, Adobe would be there. This supposed market of the Linux desktop simply does not exist. For Affinity to devote time, money, and resources to making Linux versions of their apps would be a waste of money. 

This is circular reasoning and is therefore flawed. You dont think Affinity should support Linux because the marketshare is smaller. You think the marketshare is smaller because the apps arent there for people to use Linux. This is an endless Catch 22 loop of reasoning.

If Adobe were on Linux, again I would not care if Affinity was or not. Affinity has the opportunity to take advantage of the lack of Adobe and become a bigger player and even a posterchild for promoting Linux.

34 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

It isn't just graphics software, it's all software on the Linux desktop.

Affinity is though so the debate for other apps is irrelevant to Affinity supporting it.

34 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Take a look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proprietary_software_for_Linux. One wiki page proudly lists proprietary software for Linux. I don't suppose it is complete, but ONE PAGE... And quite a few items listed are shown as discontinued.

You realize that ONE PAGE on a website can be very long. . .. its not like printing where the pages are limited. This is a very sad argument. Also you realize that Wikipedia is not a good source for your argument. I didnt even know about this page and I've been using Linux for over 20 years. You are trying to claim this is a definitive list and you should most certainly know it isnt.

I mean it doesnt even have a Snaps & Flatpaks section.

38 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So please stop pretending this market exists

please stop pretending your arguments make sense

 

14 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I've heard it all before. It goes back years years. I can't remember when I first heard it.

I've also heard things claimed about Linux over the years too from people in your perspective. "Linux will never being for gaming" and now it is. "Linux is super hard, you always need a terminal" and no it doesnt.

Just because you have heard things doesnt make you right. It sounds like your information is based on years of out of date context. You even used package managment tools to sound informed neither of which are used anymore. Example: yum was replaced by dnf. apt-get was replaced by apt. You dont need to know these anymore thanks to the software stores and whatnot but you used them as examples of difficulty but really they are just proof you are out of date by many years.

[ewwn]

I disagree, its not worth supporting closed source software for it, because there is a good amount of Linux users who just won't use closed software

If affinity was open source (not reasonable) it's simply not with it for the 1% that use Linux and are ok with closed source

Edited May 28, 2021 by ewwn

[m.vlad]

33 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Much of this post is proof that Linux users inhabit an alternative universe. They are unwilling to accept a few simple truths. Linux has its place, but it's desktop share is so small that it is not worth producing software for it.

I think it would be productive to bring some arguments before you hit us with your conclusion.

22 minutes ago, ewwn said:

I disagree, its not worth supporting closed source software for it, because there is a good amount of Linux users who just won't use closed software

If affinity was open source (not reasonable) it's simply not with it for the 1% that use Linux and are ok with closed source

You need sources when you make a strong claim like that. Where is the 1% from?

[Vex]

7 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If there was a viable graphics market on Linux, Adobe would be there. This supposed market of the Linux desktop simply does not exist. For Affinity to devote time, money, and resources to making Linux versions of their apps would be a waste of money. 

Big disagree with you on this one. I used to work at Microsoft in the dev world, and if your logic actually worked in reality, the company wouldn't have seen a significant increase in Linux users when they decided to open-source a bunch of stuff and start actively working to better support Linux.

Linux is still used for a LOT of stuff, especially in the creative world. While it is not the typical OS one assumes will be used by someone interested in raster or vector graphics, or desktop publishing, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or its use is negligible.

Linux has a much broader user base than it did even five years ago, and more and more people have "defected" to it in recent years due to a general disenchantment with tech corporations on the part of consumers. It could even be a nontrivial selling point for Affinity's apps to be Linux-compatible, or to work with WINE or Valve's own WINE implementation.

When you're still trying to edge into a market that is completely dominated by a monolithic software juggernaut, it's not unreasonable to consider alternative platforms for popularizing your software - Linux included. Now, I have no idea what the devs have encountered in the past with poking at getting Affinity to work on Linux. It may be that there's just nobody at the company with the right tool set and knowledge to make it work, and there's no justification to make a budget and find someone who can.

That doesn't mean it'd be a pointless exercise, and it doesn't mean Linux is irrelevant. And, ultimately, it seems like a feedback forum for a product is about providing feedback, not trying to trivialize and discredit feedback that is pretty clearly of interest to multiple users, given how old and expansive this thread is. Adobe's apps are probably the single biggest thing keeping me on Windows now. Just about everything else I use on a daily basis is available on Linux now, and if Affinity's apps were on Linux, making the switch could actually be possible for me.

[B-Interactive]

16 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

They are unwilling to accept a few simple truths. Linux has its place, but it's desktop share is so small that it is not worth producing software for it.

Responses to this reasoning have already been given, by myself and others.  Speaking from personal experience here, but echoing what's been said by others also, I would have switched to Linux/BSD long ago if Adobe had supported it.  Adobe Premiere was becoming such a mess though, I transitioned to Davinci Resolve, which opened the door to Linux.
 

19 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I have heard this sort of argument for about 20 years now. If only Linux had a good office suite. If only it had a good database. If only it had this that and the other. 

Perhaps a lot has happened in 20 years, but Linux desktop really lacks very little.  If we put Adobe to the side for a moment, I'm hard pressed to think of an industry level application that doesn't have an answer on Linux.  Where that becomes unstuck, is an answer to some of the Adobe Suite, namely Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.

 

16 hours ago, ewwn said:

its not worth supporting closed source software for it, because there is a good amount of Linux users who just won't use closed software

I suspect you're correct in saying a good amount of Linux users won't use closed source software.  I also suspect those users have little to no interest in the Adobe Suite or Serif products too, so no market to be lost or gained for Serif amongst that lot.  Identifying a group of people who have no interest in Serif or Adobe products, does not prove no one is interested in an answer to the Adobe Suite, or Serif products under Linux though.

[Snapseed]

11 hours ago, B-Interactive said:

...Perhaps a lot has happened in 20 years, but Linux desktop really lacks very little.  If we put Adobe to the side for a moment, I'm hard pressed to think of an industry level application that doesn't have an answer on Linux.  Where that becomes unstuck, is an answer to some of the Adobe Suite, namely Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign...

Even there, l think that credible alternatives now exist on Linux even if it means getting used to a comparable workflow. Examples include, but are not limited to, PhotoLine+Wine, Inkscape and VivaDesigner. In my case, l use Pixeluvo which is an excellent slot in replacement for Adobe Photoshop Elements.

[B-Interactive]

1 hour ago, Snapseed said:

Even there, l think that credible alternatives now exist on Linux even if it means getting used to a comparable workflow. Examples include, but are not limited to, PhotoLine+Wine, Inkscape and VivaDesigner. In my case, l use Pixeluvo which is an excellent slot in replacement for Adobe Photoshop Elements.

I appreciate those recommendations @Snapseed.  I'll be interested to see how well Pixeluvo can handle PSD files, for my interactive development work.  It's an option I'll consider in any case, because I also do a lot of photography.

I do a substantial amount of photo editing, 95% of it is done purely in raw using RawTherapee, now that I've stepped away from Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw, which had been my go-to for years.  I have been relying on Affinity Photo for that last 5%'ish.  Things like panorama stitching, spot removal, finer localised adjustments, etc.  Maybe Pixeluvo can fill that gap.