I just want to voice the point of view with the DXO team that LINUX if of no interest to 99% of their users and resources should not be wasted on that. LINUX has always been a system used by a vocal small community of tech savvy people, but it has no appeal to the general public. Before wasting resources on LINUX, an iPad version of Photolab should be prioritized. iPad is broadly used, and Adobe is having good success with its iPad version of Lightroom. The existing user base on the Mac would certainly benefit from an iPad version.
1 Like
Ah, percentages, I’ve missed them.
I suggest 99.9% instead, to better support your point.
I heard that 72% of statistics are made up 
3 Likes
See this post that I made recently on another of the 8.3 million many, many, topics asking for PL on Linux:
I have no idea if it works or not.
What are you basing your “99%” on?
The number of requests on a forum full of users repeating “don’t bother asking for a Linux version”, thus discouraging new posts asking for it?
My earlier point still stands: a more cross-platform codebase would help every existing platform and open to others including iPad.
Another dedicated version full of platform-specific code (…like iPad) would hurt the project and divert development time way more than a cross-platform version in the long run.
And if they really want absolute cross-platform, there is still the option (after migrating some code, and I suppose with some sacrifices at first) to compile to WebAssembly to get both an online version and local versions running on web engines on every platform: I usually hate those, but not when they’re done the right way for the right kind of software…
As I have previously said, the “business logic” may well already be written in a common language. However, when it comes to the UI, this is far from optimal. You tend to get a Windowsish, Macish, Linuxish “uncanny valley” that upsets far more than it pleases.
An iPad UI doesn’t really work on MacOS, albeit that some have managed. It requires explicit use of the Catalyst framework, but the UI has to be designed primarily for iPadOS, which is not necessarily identical to iOS.
The business code for such an Apple “universal” app can be written in Apple’s Swift language, which can also be compiled, with limitations, to Windows and Linux but, that would depend on open source compilers, which is something a lot of developers are reticent to get involved with as OS versions can affect the results.
As for web apps, they are not going to be optimal for “performance” apps like PhotoLab.
Above all, it is far from “just doing” this or that. It’s likely to involve several years work, starting from scratch with new code organisation.
6 Likes
At the end of the day people can request this as much as they like but it ain’t gonna happen any time soon, probably never. In any event it is not the members of this forum who make the decision.
2 Likes
Absolutely! This forum is now almost entirely a user only site on which DxO staff rarely replies anymore. This has become a meaningless debate over a topic that DxO indicated is not something they were interested in pursuing several years ago when Svetlana Gospodarenko, the DxO spokesperson, posted DxO’s stance on the development of a Linux version. Nothing has changed since then.
The full PhotoLab experience includes PhotoLab Elite, Viewpoint, and FilmPack which means all three apps would have to be redeveloped and the price to purchase all three in an open source environment used to inexpensive software would be exorbitant. DxO has made their lack of interest clear.
This debate is like beating a dead horse and nothing will come of it, but I am sure it will continue. I notice that there are now three active threads on this topic. They are a complete waste of time which I why my participation in them is so minimal with the occasional post like this one. I guess some members of this forum have a lot of time to waste.
Mark
2 Likes
I can’t post more than 2 links per post so sorry for the weird URLs, you’ll just have to recombine.
These are not competitors to DxO products so I don’t think I’m breaking any rule, these are just listed as examples and not as an endorsement of any kind, and I don’t have any link to any of them.
The CAD world has offered for a while web-based programs like:
- Tinkercad ( https:// www.tinkercad .com/ )
- Onshape ( https:// www.onshape .com/en/ )
- Autodesk AutoCAD Web ( https:// www.autodesk .com/eu/products/autocad-web/overview )
The 2D editing world also offers web-based programs, like:
- Figma ( https:// www.figma .com/ ) softwares (although Desktop versions don’t come in a Linux version for now)
- Canva ( https:// www.canva .com/ )softwares (same as above)
- Graphite ( https:// graphite .art/ ) (open source, web version available now with Desktop versions soon including Linux)
- I could add PixiEditor ( https:// pixieditor .net/ ) a bit in advance, as it started as a cross-platform “Desktop first” application (Linux included) and is planning on having a web-based version in the next few years, but in their case they handled the native cross-platform aspect first instead of using a web-based version to offer it.
Covering both 2D and 3D there are the Spline ( https:// spline .design/ ) products too.
For various 3D-based projects including games, major players like Unreal Engine, Unity and Godot have allowed HTML5 (WebAssembly+WebGL) exports for ages.
All those ARE performance-oriented software.
Most major languages allow for some kind of compilation to WASM.
Unless JS is involved (like with Windows 11 using React everywhere including the new taskbar and Explorer versions), the performance bottlenecks of software are rarely in the code of the interface.
How is it that open source projects, including quite advanced ones, usually provide cross-platform applications from the start but suddenly when the developer is a corporation it becomes “oh no poor developers, they don’t have the resources or the brainpower to do the same”?
As much as I use, fund and contribute to open-source when I can, I know that FOSS code and FOSS developers are not inherently better.
One “trick” is that many of them use the Qt library as a cross-platform basis (like the Slic3r family of programs in 3D Printing, OrcaSlicer being the most active one), and the Qt licencing costs for commercial applications can be quite stingy for small businesses (AFAIK it’s one license per developer), but it’s one choice among multiple ones (the more recent .NET versions being one of them).
You wrote yourself that it was “years ago”.
Since then a lot of things have changed in the IT world and some shifts are only growing.
But even outside of WASM-based offerings, which are only an option and could indeed take some time to get ready, as stated in an earlier message just updating the .NET version could lead towards more supported OSes without major rewrites: I find it weird that pushing for an update of the same family of technology (.NET) leads to pushback from users who’d prefer… the codebase to stagnate by staying on the same old .NET branch that won’t get new updates?
To those who really think that: are you really helping DxO by doing so?
1 Like
Are you suggesting that DxO might change it long term strategy based on anything we say in this user forum? You have been on this forum for 3 days, I have been here for 8 years. I can tell you with absolute certainty that nothing a handful of Linux users say on this forum, even if some of us with no interest in Linux support it, will have any impact on DxO’s long term strategy.
If by some miracle, and it would be a miracle, DxO ports all three parts of PhotoLab to Linux, will you be first in line to purchase all three for over $400 USD? As I said earlier, PhotoLab is actually three apps, PhotoLab Elite, FilmPack and Viewpoint. They absolutely would not just port PhotoLab Elite. Even if they had plans to port these apps to Linux it would only be if they had expectations that they would be increasing their user base very significantly to make it worth the cost, effort, and impact on their limited resources. That would require enough Linux users to purchase all three apps, which are very expensive, in significant enough numbers to make it worthwhile for them to do that. Do you really believe that there will be thousands of Linux users waiting in line to purchase the entire PhotoLab suite for $400 USD a pop?
Have you performed a complete market analysis that would show that this would work to DxO’s advantage towards meeting their business goals?
Mark
2 Likes
And what about the macOS codebase, which will be written in Swift, Objective-C or C++? Although you can compile .NET for macOS, the whole Apple UI development ecosystem is based around AppKit for macOS and UiKit for iOS.
1 Like
@Joanna As I see it there are two different issues, one technical and one business. As I have said in earlier posts, Even if somehow the entire PhotoLab suite could be ported overnight at no cost, would the costs of supporting and updating it with bug fixes, feature updates and new features over time be worth it?
Of course porting all three apps would not be free or fast. It would be very expensive and very time consuming and ongoing support for the Windows and Mac platforms would suffer. Would selling enough copies of three expensive programs on Linux to make this effort worthwhile even be possible?
Those Linux users who are pushing for this don’t seem to understand that DxO is a for profit business. No profit, no business! For DxO to develop their software for Linux they would have to be confident that there is a very large untapped market that would be willing to accept the premium price of the PhotoLab suite. It doesn’t require much research to come to the conclusion that in general Linux users are much less likely to purchase premium priced software than Mac and Windows users. Currently, PhotoLab on Linux is simply a non-starter. Maybe at some point in the future that will change.
Mark
My first licence with DxO was OpticsPro 11 in 2016 and I still have a serial code to prove it.
Not participating in a forum doesn’t mean not participating to the growth of a software as a client.
And I’m here at this time precisely because I want to still be able to participate as a client.
Do you think that not saying anything and just quietly stopping to be a client would have a better impact?
Of course.
I’m counting 16 different DxO licences in my password manager, so $400 wouldn’t be unheard of.
They have over 90 current employees listed on LinkedIn: this is not a company made up of 5 people, and if only a minority of those are developers then it’s a balance to readjust on their end.
I don’t believe that this would monopolize a whole team for years, and I also believe that they could secretly outsource this work to development companies with more experience in this matter if it’s really too much for them to handle.
I believe that not doing the port would slowly lose them customers like me, and that doing it would retain existing ones plus earn them new ones: would it be thousands? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not an oracle.
I also know that, looking at the French company registry, DxO was been dangerously close to shutting down since 2010, with only a pause these past few years, so they indeed have to be careful with what funds they have, and aim to target more clients and not less.
If they want to make some quick market research, earn some publicity in the Linux circles, and get some advance funding, they could very well put a potential Linux version on Kickstarter with a realistic funding goal, and we’d all see if it’s worth it.
I’d be here with my $400 (or even more) the day it opens, I’d spread around what word I can, and the matter would be settled quickly.
Have you performed a complete market analysis that would show that this wouldn’t work to DxO’s advantage towards meeting their business goals?
You see the risk of them shutting down if they open to other platforms, and I see the risk of them shutting down if they don’t.
Uno Platform for instance is a UI library for (currently) .NET >=9 that uses the Skia renderer (the one used in Google Chrome) to draw the same UI on all systems (iOS, Android, macOS, Windows, Linux and WebAssembly).
Less platform-specific code where it’s avoidable leads to less maintenance work and an unified interface.
You’re thinking of either the Stallman-like FOSS “fundamentalists” (for whom nothing in their system should be closed source) or those who cling to Linux because “it’s free”: they indeed exist.
But you’re completely missing out on the normal users migrating away from Windows because it became a trash fire and Linux works better for them: they were paying for their software before switching, and will still pay after.
EDIT:
Currently if I upgrade all of my licences, with the holiday discount I’d pay 335,97€.
I know it’s not much in the grand scheme of things, but I’d pay that (or even the full price after the holidays) if I see an official communication (even non-committal) like “we’re currently evaluating more platforms but cannot promise anything for the foreseeable future”, just to fund the “evaluation” even if I wouldn’t be able to use those upgrades, and I’d give proof here.
1 Like
A lot of the forum users screamed in despair when DxO went with a new and easier license management but which needed to call home once in a while otherwise it would deactivate itself.
Moving to a web based service would cause havoc for many.
The DxO raw photo development customers are not ready for that.
You’re entirely right about the “moving” part but that was not what I was pushing for.
These examples were to show that targeting a WebAssembly build to produce high-performance platform-agnostic versions (including both desktop and web) was possible, and even a new norm it seems, for these kind of applications.
By the way I completely missed that Adobe was doing it too nowadays, Lightroom included, because they’ve been completely out of my radar since I left their ecosystem the same way I’m leaving the Windows one right now.
Some publishers in my examples choose to only target a web platform to justify monthly payments from users, especially those in the CAD world, but technically they could also distribute platform-specific versions because almost all the required work is already done.
Yes, they’d need to add a few pipelines to their CI/CDs like “package a distribution-agnostic AppImage for Linux”.
But who knows, maybe DxO offering a web version ON TOP of desktop ones could bring in more users too, because it would be a gateway for all currently unsupported operating systems.
I don’t think current users would have an issue with that option as long as the continued existence of desktop versions is promised.
I don’t have to, only DxO has to do that. Clearly they don’t think there is a significant enough benefit otherwise they would be working on it.
Mark
Who knows, they may very well have been working on something in the background but wouldn’t want to announce it yet: new features usually drop as a surprise alongside new version announcements.
It’s wishful thinking, but in the absence of any official communication you can’t either say with certainty that they’re not working on it (even if it’s the most likely scenario).
1 Like
So, ok, pushing… I mostly read about users pleading and arguing. For my part, I am a fairly recent user who has encountered a new need (thanks Microsoft) and who sees all the history and doesn’t understand why, because once in history it was officially said that Linux was not relevant, things are not reconsidered in a more current light.
Stagnation has never been a guarantee of prosperity; it only holds up as long as there’s no alternative… And, in the software world, things can change very quickly.
As “proof,” no one (myself included, who wasn’t looking for a Linux version of PL) would have bet a few months ago that an exodus from the Microsoft world to other platforms would happen.
We are not yet at the point where a character opens a passage in the waters (and perhaps it will never be such a significant movement) but, from reading various news sources, my impression is that these departures are becoming more and more numerous, including in companies and institutions.
Ultimately, as far as this forum is concerned, it is obviously DXO that will decide (this doesn’t diminish the legitimacy of our comments here, does it?) its policies and priorities. We are in complete agreement on that.
My opinion on this matter is that, given the problems users have experienced with the latest DXO releases, it’s high time to start over, if not from scratch, then with a thoroughly revised foundation. This is an opportunity not to be missed to focus on more compatibility.
4 Likes
If DxO doesn’t sort out Linux support for Photolab etc, I’ll stop buying it.
That’s not a threat, just the reality of it. Likely their bottom line will be unaffected by my absence - whether there’s greater effect from more users ceasing due to Microsoft exodus, can’t be sure. I don’t claim to have any data on the userbase other than my own anecdata.
2 Likes
That is not going to happen anytime soon, and probably never will happen, Sorry to see you go.
Mark
1 Like