I'm not moaning at them about the price, but I think it's fair to consider what they are actually saying. Both work on Ubuntu, but snaps work out of the box, and Flatpak needs to be installed by the user in this distro, so I think snaps are more attractive to my argument.Yes, and I'm one of them.

Snaps it's the model created by Ubuntu parent company Canonical, and Flatpaks is the model patrocinated by RedHat. In short, those two methods are like apps are wrapped on android, not exactly like, its comparable, it wrap the software and all his necessary libraries and deliver it to the user packed up, they can even sandbox the software to run on a higher level of security, both are really similar. I think I expressed myself correctly and transmited my argument in a constructive way.īIG PS: If the counter-argument its about what distro to use and how to deliver the software: You could stick with Ubuntu and use Snappy or Flatpak wrappers to distribute the program. To emphasize this point, Photoshop reigns supreme on Windows and Affinity is currently the underdog, on Linux this isnt the case, Gimp exist, yes, but it not at the same level as professional applications on windows and mac. He said that it would cost 500k to port it, and it wouldn't compensate because of the small linux user base, my argument is that: Although the Linux user base is smaller than Windows, Affinity Photo would become the primary option to linux users all over the world, and potentially impulse others to migrate do linux knowing that they would need to rely on Wine to use photoshop.

Some time ago I saw a post on the forum asking about a linux port of Photo, someone responded as being one of the devs, I don't know if he was one of them or not.

Affinity photo on linux