Jump to content

Affinity for Linux


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

For example in Windows, there are the various versions of the C++ runtimes which can be installed. These are entirely separate from any application which depends on them.

For everyone else that's reading: Don't get rattled by this FUD.

Flatpak, the next generation of AppImage, works the same as described above. You can install multiple versions of the same components in Flatpak, and every other Flatpak can load them when needed.

AppImage just works everywhere. Flatpak is the same but allows separating often shared libraries. The latter is only beneficial if you are frugal about storage space. The former is beneficial if you don't care and want it to just work no matter what. Packaging one or the other is as simple as adding a line to your build script. For that reason, many software (e.g. the Non-Linear video Editor KdenLive) publish both, so people can choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Renzatic said:

Like I said, it's mostly an academic argument,

It isn't. Let's say you have five apps depending on a library. If that library has a trivial vulnerability, the library maintainer can update it. With AppImage you now have five more developers running around like blue-arsed flies patching their version of the library. Congratulations: what was one patch update has now become six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Turning that on its head, it means that trying to get software to run on Linux "just doesn't work". That's a bit unkind, it's just difficult due to all the different versions.

Like I said, it's a rare problem these days. Something you only clash against occasionally. In the 3ish months it's been since I slapped Pop OS on my machine, I've only seen it happen once, and that was from someone playing around with their own homemade complied version of an application, and wasn't too familiar with Linux norms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LondonSquirrel said:

It isn't. Let's say you have five apps depending on a library. If that library has a trivial vulnerability, the library maintainer can update it. With AppImage you now have five more developers running around like blue-arsed flies patching their version of the library. Congratulations: what was one patch update has now become six.

app images are compiled versions of apps, if you update the library on the base app you can compile app images off of that, where in the app image description does it say that you're not forking the entire app and libraries and you have to patch your own things to follow the base fork? That is absurd, and I don't see how windows does this any better?

Mădălin Vlad
Graphic Designer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LondonSquirrel said:

The final refuge of the Linux defender, warts and all, is the reference to FUD.

Or it's just the definition of what you're doing right now: spreading negativity while showing clear lack of understanding and ignoring the relevant parts of people who are trying to educate you towards more objective and uptodate ideas, even though your demeanor is straying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

It's not an issue of reliability, so much as ease of use. All Linux software will run on all Linux distros. Appimages are just the no fuss, no muss approach to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

What is so shocking about a developer using a better solution than what they were using before? Do you think Linus makes the entire linux kernel code by himself with no outside contributions? He had a distribution issue with an app, so he used a feature that was built to solve that. I don't get how that's a bad argument

Mădălin Vlad
Graphic Designer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

He can. He did. He is lazy. He didn't want to compile for 10 distro's. He found a solution in AppImage. Modeled after MacOS .dng.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, German_Printer said:

Don't hope that a Linux version will probably not come out

In my view Affinity developing for Linux is a waste of time for these reasons:

  • Tiny market share of Linux on the desktop (despite what the Linux promoters will tell you).
  • The problems that go with building software for Linux on the desktop due to incompatible versions of libraries.
  • The utterly time-wasting arguments about which distribution to support, which packaging system, etc.

Of all the reasons, the top one will be most evident. But to quote George: Evidence of the old glazzies. Why do you think that Adobe have not developed for Linux? I'll tell you: it's they have more sense than money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renzatic said:

It's not an issue of reliability, so much as ease of use. All Linux software will run on all Linux distros. Appimages are just the no fuss, no muss approach to it.

Swings and roundabouts. The ease of use comes from being easy to deploy. On Linux, you cannot take that for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, m.vlad said:

What is so shocking about a developer using a better solution than what they were using before? Do you think Linus makes the entire linux kernel code by himself with no outside contributions? He had a distribution issue with an app, so he used a feature that was built to solve that. I don't get how that's a bad argument

You do not seem to understand the problem of developing software for Linux on the desktop. You cannot even begin to rely on which libraries and versions of libraries are installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Why do you think that Adobe have not developed for Linux? I'll tell you: it's they have more sense than money.

You have Substance Painter and Designer on Linux, both of which are Adobe apps.

The problem with Linux isn't that it's small, rather that it's very specific. If you're working with code or 3D applications, you have tons of users with all the support you'd ever need. Graphics design? Well, that's more of a question mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In my view Affinity developing for Linux is a waste of time for these reasons:

  • Tiny market share of Linux on the desktop (despite what the Linux promoters will tell you).
  • The problems that go with building software for Linux on the desktop due to incompatible versions of libraries.
  • The utterly time-wasting arguments about which distribution to support, which packaging system, etc.

Of all the reasons, the top one will be most evident. But to quote George: Evidence of the old glazzies. Why do you think that Adobe have not developed for Linux? I'll tell you: it's they have more sense than money.

There is no proof for or against the share of linux because there is no telemetry.

as for your 2nd and 3rd arguments, do we need to refute them again? We've already given options for that - snap packages, appimages, etc. I don't see how packing in dependencies completely takes appimage off the table. sure it adds redundancies, but what about that makes it a no-go option?

As far as Adobe's reasons go, you have no source, you can only make claims about what their reasoning was. I can also put words in their mouth "They didn't want to do it because they have a large library and they have more than enough profit margin from their current supported operating systems". that gets us nowhere, we're just arguing fantasies.

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

You do not seem to understand the problem of developing software for Linux on the desktop. You cannot even begin to rely on which libraries and versions of libraries are installed.

Yes you can, that's the package manager. Or you can use a prepackaged solution such as appimages. Windows does that as well, you have developers packaging in dll libraries with apps instead of having the OS do that, you know why? because it works. I don't see you arguing against Microsoft for not taking control of the library dependency problem. I can only assume it's bias, and considering your tone and ignorance throughout these pages, I'm not sure anyone can argue with you, not because of a lack of valid points, but because you don't bring anything worthwhile to the table or actually are part of a conversation.

Edited by m.vlad
added argument
Mădălin Vlad
Graphic Designer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Renzatic said:

It's not an issue of reliability, so much as ease of use. All Linux software will run on all Linux distros. Appimages are just the no fuss, no muss approach to it.

That is entirely untrue. A few years ago I had a commercial Linux app which would only run on RedHat. No amount of trickery could get it to run on Debian or Fedora or even Oracle Linux. I have over 20 years experience with UNIX and Linux, I know quite a few tricks. I was stumped. Deep down there was something different which the installer was looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

That is entirely untrue. A few years ago I had a commercial Linux app which would only run on RedHat. No amount of trickery could get it to run on Debian or Fedora or even Oracle Linux. I have over 20 years experience with UNIX and Linux, I know quite a few tricks. I was stumped. Deep down there was something different which the installer was looking for.

If it ran on Redhat, it should've run on Fedora, since it's effectively tomorrow's version thereof.

The only time I actually had any trouble installing an app was with those two programs I mentioned above. Substance Painter and Designer are targeted towards Redhat/CentOS users, and thus only comes in .rpm files. Pop, being Debian based, can't install .rpm files natively, so I had to convert them to .debs.

Was it a pain in the ass? Oh, yes. Even though things are considerably more user friendly than they've ever been in Linux land, there are still occasions where you have to get down and dirty with the nerdy to get something working. But I was able to get it work, and it performed fine afterwards. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, m.vlad said:

There is no proof for or against the share of linux because there is no telemetry.

Err, you can go to Statcounter and get the figures based on 3 million web sites. We are talking about desktop apps here, so if Linux users aren't using a browser in this day and age, what are they using their desktops for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Aren't these Steam apps?

I have access to them on Steam, and they install instantly there. Thing is, I hate having to open Steam every time I want to launch a program. There's always someone there who starts spamming me with messages every time I open it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.