Curious about free version for Linux

Hi,

I think it's a great model to have a free non-crippled version of the software to get people acquainted with (and possibly addicted to) the products, so they can confidently lobby to bring in the payed product in a big production.

I'm just curious about why products like Fusion and DaVinci Resolve have a free version for Windows and Mac, but only a payed version for Linux.

What's the reason behind treating Linux differently?

Might be a support issue. It also might be a case where it's not needed. Linux is perceived to be mostly used by large studios, not individuals, so it's more likely a crippled free version isn't going to be a useful test anyway. After all, if you can't test plugins, scripting, or network rendering, you haven't really tested it.

Might be perceived that way. But I'm wondering if that's the sole reasoning behind the decision. Free versions usually have no support anyway, and the paid-for version with support has Linux support.

I'm an individual running Linux. It's very affordable. Market share for individuals who use Linux as a desktop OS has increased from 0.7% to 2.5% in 5 years according to W3Counter. That's a 350% increase.

Valve has switched their primary focus for their gaming engines to Linux: Newell stated that getting Steam and games to work on Linux is a key strategy for Valve; Newell called the closed nature of Windows "a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space".

I don't mean to start a debate about Linux usage by individuals. I just want to illustrate that it's there, and I'm wondering why they are left out; If the code is properly maintained in a multi-platform fashion (which it is, according to BlackMagic Design, apart from some Fusion UI code which has since been fixed), it is just a matter of adding Linux to their build targets. It's one relatively cost-free action to include this 2.5% market share.

There is an extra bonus for BlackMagic Design because Linux has structurally been ignored by big players. Shake was a good Linux alternative, but it has been bought and killed by Apple. Lightworks has been the first in a while to have the same model for Linux as BlackMagic has for other operating systems: A free fully functional version with pro features in a paid-for version.

I think the (small by comparison) Individuals-using-Linux community is jumping for more professional-grade media support by bigger players, and a free wave of praise will wash over any company who is the first. Or second.

2.5% is tiny. I also suspect that the share of individual Linux users using Fusion is smaller than the share of individual Windows (or Mac) users using Fusion. So as a potential market it's negligible.

Not so, however, on the pro vfx stage. Big houses, some capable of shifting 1000+ licenses, are typically (if not all) run on Linux.

Given the pressure to keep cost down in those places, combined with internal development potential, I think it makes total business sense not to offer a free Linux version of Fusion.

PS. as an aside: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/11/a ... os-gaming/

Also, 2.5% doesn't mean those users could run Fusion. Chromebooks or other thin computers are going to be included in that despite being totally incapable of running Fusion.

Also, free users DO generate a lot of support issues and BMD does support those users.

BMD has been using the same model for Resolve, too, so there must be some reasoning behind it that makes sense for them.

And really, what is the alternative? Cost effective closed source options on Linux are few. If the space gets interesting, BMD can always change their stance.

You are right about the current state of affairs.

Although, if I could, with a single compile command, get a 2.5% wage raise, I would happily do it. I know this is not a fair analogy because, like you said, the share of users using Fusion on Linux is smaller. But that in itself is a catch-22 statement, because Fusion (free) is not available on linux. So it's more of an assumption that when it would be available, usage share would be smaller.

A lot of people (myself incluis) say: I would ditch Windows completely if Adobe CC would be available on Linux.

So we cannot be sure what would happen, but given the lack of proper Linux entry media options, you would get a bigger share of the platform-specific users' attention compared to Windows and OSX due to lack of competitors that the other platforms have.

It seems BlackMagic only stands to gain from this, in users, market share, and free publicity, although small scale but at no additional cost. I guess I would like to hear an official point of view on this as to why they choose (not) to do so, and perhaps point out a cost that I am totally missing - or start offering a Linux download as well.

---

In response to your aside, keep in mind that most games, and maybe the benchmark software too, are "built with DirectX in mind in the first place".

I remember that back in the day, playing games like Unreal for Windows on Linux through wine would result in a higher frame rate than playing in Windows itself.

When writing platform-agnostic code, we see a different benchmark: www steamforlinux com / ?q=en/node/74 (I am not allowed to post URLs.)

Of course this is not the average for all games, but Linux has only recently become a blip on game studios' radars, and everyone's workflow is still highly Windows-minded. Linux is not (yet) considered as a serious desktop platform by the majority of companies. That's why BlackMagic is so welcome to release their free tools to the Linux desktop. Be the change.

Although, if I could, with a single compile command, get a 2.5% wage raise, I would happily do it. I know this is not a fair analogy because, like you said, the share of users using Fusion on Linux is smaller. But that in itself is a catch-22 statement, because Fusion (free) is not available on linux. So it's more of an assumption that when it would be available, usage share would be smaller.

But where does this wage raise happen? If at all, it makes more work for BMD, and actually only produces costs.
I'd also bet that not even the half of the 2,5% would use Fusion to begin with. So the number is more likely well below 1%

Of course, it would most likely not hurt them to just release it, but it's a policy they drive with DaVinci since it got a free version (with v8 I think). If the Fusion Studio release is similar to DaVinci Studio for Linux, it is AFAIK not as simple as installing an .exe on a PC; so maybe a bit more complex than most might think.

Actually, the "give us free Fusion for Linux, too"-question are around since the announcement was published last year, so BMD is knowing pretty well that this is wanted. However, no reaction so far

I have no way of knowing, so this is just a guess, but I think the earlier comment about BMD not wanting to provide a free avenue for the big studios is probably the correct answer.

The really big houses are almost all Linux, as stated earlier. They are likely the ones paying for Fusion's existence. The little guys are the ones mostly on Windows and Mac and they are likely using After Affects. It's this crowd that the free version is trying to attract. It's worked on me. I'm quickly falling in love with Fusion and I never would have bothered to try it otherwise.

I also would love to see a free Linux version, but I understand the motive not to. And if I decide to move my workstation over to Linux (which i often consider) then I'm happy knowing I can take all my tools with me for less than the cost of one Adobe Production Suite license (before they went cloud and forced us all to rent).

I have no way of knowing, so this is just a guess, but I think the earlier comment about BMD not wanting to provide a free avenue for the big studios is probably the correct answer.

The really big houses are almost all Linux, as stated earlier. They are likely the ones paying for Fusion's existence. The little guys are the ones mostly on Windows and Mac and they are likely using After Affects. It's this crowd that the free version is trying to attract.

It looks like you are right. Support emailed me back:

"As Resolve requires a specific release of CentOS that can only be installed by one of our official Linux system integrators, the Linux license is required."

Something never just works on only one distro. Dependencies can be difficult, but Linux users are known for their ingenuity and their way of making everything work on everything. Besides, compile every dependency into the binary and most of that goes away. However, BMD cannot honestly provide technical support for every main distro out there. So it makes sense that they only support one distro. However, they choose to disallow the Linux community from trying for themselves, which shows their hand.

Fusion is a very nice product. I worked with version 5 as a student when it was still owned by EyeOn. I switched to After Effects for pricing reasons (before the subscription model). But I thoroughly dislike leaving my comfort zone by booting to Windows. Any serious company that doesn't treat Linux differently earns my vote. Especially since I know stuff will work fine in most major Linux distros, but it's prohibited for political reasons.

if I decide to move my workstation over to Linux (which i often consider) then I'm happy knowing I can take all my tools with me

So that's not entirely true. They will set up a complete CentOS system for you. You cannot just move over, freely pick from the distros that are appealing to you, and install the software.

I also understand their motive not to. I'm just frustrated that I still have to boot to Windows to use any serious compositing product. If there was something available in Linux, I would be motivated to learn something else.