4 ms·

I wonder how much demonstrable interest it would really take to convince the management at Serif that a real Linux port of Affinity is a worthwhile exercise. Ev

I wonder how much demonstrable interest it would really take to convince the management at Serif that a real Linux port of Affinity is a worthwhile exercise. Every time the software comes up in discussions, it feels like half the comments are just enthusiastic people hoping for a Linux-friendly version. I understand the hesitation, and surely Serif have had a conversation internally and maybe done some market research. Still, if the cost guesstimate for doing it that I saw someone apparently from Serif mentioning in a previous discussion was even close to realistic, I can’t help wondering if they could easily raise that much just in pre-orders if they ran a Kickstarter-style “Will it work?” campaign, and probably a lot of goodwill from the tech community as a bonus.

overcast 5y ago
The Linux community is a very vocal minority when in comes to the internet. While it would be nice to have available on all platforms, the reality is the majority of people are happily working on the other two major platforms and don't care.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  And Linux[0] is absolutely the worst "platform" you could ever have to port commercial software to. There is a ludicrous level of fragmentation where even individual distributions break compatibility with themselves every few years, and there is no widely accepted standard for binary application distribution[1]. That's without even getting into things like driver issues that are arguably not Linux's fault. As game developers discovered, Linux will often account for a vastly disproportionate amount of your bug reports for its share of installs. I sympathise with people who want to be able to use their favorite software on a FOSS OS, I'm right there with you, but that will always be an uphill battle on Linux because the culture is deeply anti-platform. [0] "Linux" here is taken as shorthand for "The GNU/Linux Desktop". The kernel itself is a fine platform. [1] unless you lump all the different package repos, formats, and managers together. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem here.
  - fouric 5y ago
    > There is a ludicrous level of fragmentation where even individual distributions break compatibility with themselves every few years Even worse, there is a vocal group of users who believe that this fragmentation is a good thing, and that software developers should target multiple distributions (or be shamed for it), as opposed to doing the sane thing and just targeting Ubuntu (or some common abstraction layer).
    - hitekker 5y ago
      The vocal group you speak of overlaps significantly with the group that wants the price of all software to be voluntary donations. At some point, their desires become parasitical.
  - dantondwa 5y ago
    While undoubtedly true, it’s also true that Linux is nowadays the default OS for VFX, for example, and this means that a lot of commercial 3d software targets it (for example, Autodesk Maya or the Substance suite). There is a standard “platform” of reference that allows companies to have a fixed target for their software: https://vfxplatform.com https://vfxplatform.com I think targeting it would be probably the best solution for a company willing to porting to Linux. Alternatively, Flatpaks/Appimages provide a very nice and user friendly solution to this problem.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >While undoubtedly true, it’s also true that Linux is nowadays the default OS for VFX That's mainly because it's cheap and VFX is like a "factory production line" style job. But VFX is also very much a niche compared to vector graphics and DTP (and even more so, compared to bitmap graphics). In other words, if Affinity's concern is that the Linux market for their stuff if small, then the intersection of "the Linux market for their staff" that "has the standard platform for VFX" is much much smaller.
  - themulticaster 5y ago
    Except there is a widely accepted standard for binary application distribution: AppImage (https://appimage.org/ https://appimage.org/). It's a fire-and-forget solution: You download the AppImage and run it. No need to install anything. AppImage was created for precisely this scenario: When you want to distribute a proprietary application without worrying about packaging it for different Linux distributions. And for the driver issues: This is being brought up now and then, but comparing the amount of issues I've had with my AMD graphics card on Linux (essentially none) [1] with the amount of anecdotes of Windows driver issues I regularly see in certain forums, I'd say driver issues are a myth by now (to a certain extent of course, please don't bring up how you had to install a firmware package for your Broadcom wireless chipset...). [1] I'm not saying there aren't ever any driver bugs now and then, but just a food for thought: My graphics card works perfectly out of the box, without any configuration or driver installation at all, on most recent (read: not ancient) Linux versions. On Windows I'd have to look for whatever piece of ad-laden "graphics management suite" I need and then install it as well as regularly update it.
jstummbillig 5y ago
> I wonder how much demonstrable interest it would really take to convince the management at Serif that a real Linux port of Affinity is a worthwhile exercise. Probably more than is demonstrable. It will never be a money maker. It might still happen for other reasons.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
These discussions remind me of the people asking for a small iPhone. Apple responded but it failed to find enough customers. Linux has 1% of the desktop market and even within that small number the majority are used to getting their software for free. I'd say the chance of a Linux version is effectively zero.
- hitekker 5y ago
  Yep, those folks engaged in "performative commenting" upvoting and agreeing that they would all buy small phones if only Apple would make them. Then Apple made the small phones... and crickets.
  - aendruk 5y ago
    It takes time. With luck I shouldn’t need to buy a new phone for at least another year or two.
- simonh 5y ago
  Er, the original 4" SE sold really well. https://tcrn.ch/3jxVB6p https://tcrn.ch/3jxVB6p
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    As does the current budget phone. The thing is people were regularly complaining that they couldn't get a high end device in a small package. Yet when Apple delivered that it didn't sell in large enough volumes. https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/14/report-apple-drop-iphone-mini-2022-device-lineup-following-limited-sales/ https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/14/report-apple-drop-iphone...
    - simonh 5y ago
      So they sold really well, but not in large enough volumes. The only way both can be true is if it was at different times. I can believe that, maybe there was a significant market, but then after a few years it got saturated.

overcast 5y ago

The Linux community is a very vocal minority when in comes to the internet. While it would be nice to have available on all platforms, the reality is the majority of people are happily working on the other two major platforms and don't care.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
And Linux[0] is absolutely the worst "platform" you could ever have to port commercial software to. There is a ludicrous level of fragmentation where even individual distributions break compatibility with themselves every few years, and there is no widely accepted standard for binary application distribution[1]. That's without even getting into things like driver issues that are arguably not Linux's fault. As game developers discovered, Linux will often account for a vastly disproportionate amount of your bug reports for its share of installs. I sympathise with people who want to be able to use their favorite software on a FOSS OS, I'm right there with you, but that will always be an uphill battle on Linux because the culture is deeply anti-platform. [0] "Linux" here is taken as shorthand for "The GNU/Linux Desktop". The kernel itself is a fine platform. [1] unless you lump all the different package repos, formats, and managers together. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a problem here.
- fouric 5y ago
  > There is a ludicrous level of fragmentation where even individual distributions break compatibility with themselves every few years Even worse, there is a vocal group of users who believe that this fragmentation is a good thing, and that software developers should target multiple distributions (or be shamed for it), as opposed to doing the sane thing and just targeting Ubuntu (or some common abstraction layer).
  - hitekker 5y ago
    The vocal group you speak of overlaps significantly with the group that wants the price of all software to be voluntary donations. At some point, their desires become parasitical.
- dantondwa 5y ago
  While undoubtedly true, it’s also true that Linux is nowadays the default OS for VFX, for example, and this means that a lot of commercial 3d software targets it (for example, Autodesk Maya or the Substance suite). There is a standard “platform” of reference that allows companies to have a fixed target for their software: https://vfxplatform.com https://vfxplatform.com I think targeting it would be probably the best solution for a company willing to porting to Linux. Alternatively, Flatpaks/Appimages provide a very nice and user friendly solution to this problem.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >While undoubtedly true, it’s also true that Linux is nowadays the default OS for VFX That's mainly because it's cheap and VFX is like a "factory production line" style job. But VFX is also very much a niche compared to vector graphics and DTP (and even more so, compared to bitmap graphics). In other words, if Affinity's concern is that the Linux market for their stuff if small, then the intersection of "the Linux market for their staff" that "has the standard platform for VFX" is much much smaller.
- themulticaster 5y ago
  Except there is a widely accepted standard for binary application distribution: AppImage (https://appimage.org/ https://appimage.org/). It's a fire-and-forget solution: You download the AppImage and run it. No need to install anything. AppImage was created for precisely this scenario: When you want to distribute a proprietary application without worrying about packaging it for different Linux distributions. And for the driver issues: This is being brought up now and then, but comparing the amount of issues I've had with my AMD graphics card on Linux (essentially none) [1] with the amount of anecdotes of Windows driver issues I regularly see in certain forums, I'd say driver issues are a myth by now (to a certain extent of course, please don't bring up how you had to install a firmware package for your Broadcom wireless chipset...). [1] I'm not saying there aren't ever any driver bugs now and then, but just a food for thought: My graphics card works perfectly out of the box, without any configuration or driver installation at all, on most recent (read: not ancient) Linux versions. On Windows I'd have to look for whatever piece of ad-laden "graphics management suite" I need and then install it as well as regularly update it.

jstummbillig 5y ago

> I wonder how much demonstrable interest it would really take to convince the management at Serif that a real Linux port of Affinity is a worthwhile exercise. Probably more than is demonstrable. It will never be a money maker. It might still happen for other reasons.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

These discussions remind me of the people asking for a small iPhone. Apple responded but it failed to find enough customers. Linux has 1% of the desktop market and even within that small number the majority are used to getting their software for free. I'd say the chance of a Linux version is effectively zero.

hitekker 5y ago
Yep, those folks engaged in "performative commenting" upvoting and agreeing that they would all buy small phones if only Apple would make them. Then Apple made the small phones... and crickets.
- aendruk 5y ago
  It takes time. With luck I shouldn’t need to buy a new phone for at least another year or two.
simonh 5y ago
Er, the original 4" SE sold really well. https://tcrn.ch/3jxVB6p https://tcrn.ch/3jxVB6p
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  As does the current budget phone. The thing is people were regularly complaining that they couldn't get a high end device in a small package. Yet when Apple delivered that it didn't sell in large enough volumes. https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/14/report-apple-drop-iphone-mini-2022-device-lineup-following-limited-sales/ https://siliconangle.com/2021/04/14/report-apple-drop-iphone...
  - simonh 5y ago
    So they sold really well, but not in large enough volumes. The only way both can be true is if it was at different times. I can believe that, maybe there was a significant market, but then after a few years it got saturated.