could you make a Flatpak for DaVinci Resolve Linux?

Hi developers of Davinci Resolve ,
i'm using a deepin linux, and tried to install Davinci Resolve ,but it didn't work.
so , i suggest you to make a flatpak for DaVinci Resolve .
and also ,in this way all the Linux users will can install the app ,in any linux distribuction
could you make a Flatpak package for DaVinci Resolve ? please

more information about Flatpak
https://flatpak.org/

Yes Please, Flatpak has grown a lot and is very dependable now.
A flatpack package would surely make it easier to keep Davinci Resolve up to date as I won't need to download and update it manually.

Another vote for flatpak please! Hate dealing with the 32bit PNG dependencies under Arch and flatpak would hide the mess away!

Thank you!

+1

+1.2112765

A good idea, though I doubt it would happen - unless BMD adopt a use at your own peril policy for it.

They probably should, as it would make a lot of users happy.

Flatpak would be really useful. I am not sure it will work with OpenCL? Maybe Vulkan support is needed?

+1

This would be terrific.

+1

+1
The pieces are out there, ready for harvest. Can someone please wrap it up and:
1. Bring to Flathub https://github.com/pobthebuilder/resolve-flatpak
2. Integrate AMD GPUs https://github.com/pobthebuilder/rocm-flatpak/issues/1

Reference: https://discourse.flathub.org/t/davinci ... equest/842

To offer DaVinci Resolve as Flatpak would neatly decouple the application from the OS while making it available to a wide range of distros. For example Fedora Silverblue cannot be used with the current/old installer. Flatpak is the way to go IMHO. Thanks for your consideration.

It seems that unfortunately we're lacking a last piece to achieve this. Apparently, the current download/registration cannot be integrated with existing options on Flathub as discussed here: https://discourse.flathub.org/t/davinci ... uest/842/6

TLDR; Flathub-builder does not allow network access. AFAIK the sources need to be downloaded from a direct URL via the manifest. In order for this to work, Blackmagic would need to provide a public URL for direct download of the installer without any registration. The reason is to ensure that the build is always reproducible. Flatpak is on the path to becoming the industry standard and I am convinced this would be the way to go. Flatpak is the only way to install Resolve to immutable OS like Fedora Silverblue. I assume the same story goes for Snap packaging.

Dear Blackmagic, can you please provide/enable a URL which does not require registration? As a reference, this is how Steam is downloaded via direct URL: https://github.com/flathub/com.valvesof ... .Steam.yml

+1

I add my vote. The lack of a sensible, reliable method of installing Resolve on most Linux Distro's is the last thing stopping me from switching from Windows to Linux. Pretty much all other software I use are open source but as long as Blender and Kdenlive has not reached Resolve's level for video editing , I am waiting for Resolve to make something easily installable on Linux Distro's

I add my vote. The lack of a sensible, reliable method of installing Resolve on most Linux Distro's is the last thing stopping me from switching from Windows to Linux. Pretty much all other software I use are open source but as long as Blender and Kdenlive has not reached Resolve's level for video editing , I am waiting for Resolve to make something easily installable on Linux Distro's

The problem is Linux is a moving target. It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure). It can get broken at any time by anyone. So BMD are on a hiding to nothing. They will support one distribution and if you want to use a different one it is at your own risk, which seems reasonable to me.

It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure). It can get broken at any time by anyone

As compared to Windows which is also not particularly stable and is regularly broken by nothing other than an automated Windows update.

As for security... I feel far more confident running Linux than Windows, from a security perspective.

It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure). It can get broken at any time by anyone

As compared to Windows which is also not particularly stable and is regularly broken by nothing other than an automated Windows update.

As for security... I feel far more confident running Linux than Windows, from a security perspective.

You can feel what you like but it is incorrect. Linux is flaky.

For about 20 years I have worked with a company that produced Sw debug systems. These can be hosted on Linux. However, like BMD they only support one Linux and for anything else you are on your own. The problem being there are 100s of Linux distributions (there are actually 1000's of them but moist are obsolete and unsupported) Unless you get a pre-built one compiling it your self means it is different to others of the same distro and version number.

As for Linux security itself, Several of the tools I worked with have been used to analyze the Linux kernel and distros. The code is not good. Some is quite good, but most is mediocre to poor with lots of problems in it. There are multiple cases of malware being inserted to the Kernel by ghost contributors. This is why Linux is banned from critical systems. (see Do178 for aviation)

As a desktop OS Windows is a safer bet than Linux. Linux may be (mostly) POSIX compliant, but it is not a UNIX.

It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure).

Linux is flaky.

And that's why it's running 38.8% of the top 10,000 websites, 100% of top 500 supercomputers and it's kernel runs on vast majority of IOT appliances, android smarphones/tablets, smart TVs, gaming consoles, Tesla cars etc. Did I already proved my point that Your opinion about GNU/Linux is in fact an OPINION and to be precise, opinion not based on facts.

The problem being there are 100s of Linux distributions

And 3-4 major ones with compatible derivatives. However flatpacks/appimages etc. are a solution for this. We're not living in 2014 anymore so please revise Your view with current situation. You don't have to package Your app for 100 distros and dozen of architectures to be compatible with every distro or choose to support one to be safe.

Several of the tools I worked with have been used to analyze the Linux kernel and distros.

And I understand You had the pleasure to examine MacOS and Windows kernel too and it turned out to be well optimised and 100% safe code? No? Oh..

There are multiple cases of malware being inserted to the Kernel by ghost contributors.

Can You direct me to any place documenting this incidents? Obviously I can find info about inserting code with deliberately added vulnerabilities but a malware? And multiple times? That's thrilling and I can't wait to read more about it.

This is why Linux is banned from critical systems. (see Do178 for aviation)

Oh boy. It's not "banned". It's just not approved as it's not designed as RTOS system. Same for ANY desktop OS so it's not even an argument in this debate You started. BTW there are RTOS kernels in FOSS world and also ones approved in Do178 eg. LynxOS.

As a desktop OS Windows is a safer bet than Linux

With no public audit and their devs contantly occupied with nonsense like adding VR functionality to any Windows tool and then provisionally riping it off to mold Windows 11 which is rougly a 20GB of blob to maintain? With no fully grown app repository and users scavenging random sites for executables? With bunch of apps working only ran as admin user and users accustomed to trying it? That's not a role model for safety but a miracle that it works somehow.

Most of your conclusions are wrong.
Dangerously so.

As you mention LynxOS. It is NOT a Linux in any way whatsoever, nor is it Free or Open Source.
Though I have seen the source code for it.

Which open Source RTOS were you refering to?

Come on.
Even if Linux were unsafe (which is not the case), the FR is not about the subject.

Big +1 for me.

I have used Windows for decades. But I see more and more people really switching to Linux, especially with the coming end of support for Windows 10 (and because it's getting really easy to install and use).

I totally removed Windows 10 from a laptop and put Pop_OS on it recently. My plan for the future is to get into a place where I can use both and slowly only use Linux. 

I'm learning about the basics of Linux, mostly with Mint and PopOS, and I've learned about what Flatpak was not long ago.

If this can make Davinci Resolve work without problems on more distros than the two recommended by BMD and be able to update the program easily (which is a feature of Flatpak, right? I'm a noob.

PS.

I have Glasswire installed on my Windows machine. Launching the install of the new Resolve version pinged Microsoft's CDN servers.

Come on.
Even if Linux were unsafe (which is not the case),
......

I'm learning about the basics of Linux,

If you are "learning about the basics of Linux" you can't make the preceding comment that you know Linux is safe.

Come on.
Even if Linux were unsafe (which is not the case),
......

I'm learning about the basics of Linux,

If you are "learning about the basics of Linux" you can't make the preceding comment that you know Linux is safe.

Yes I can.

I don't have to put my hand in the fire to know it's dangerous. Many things in life are learned by the experiences shared other people knowing what they are doing. General concepts, how things work, can be assimilated by almost anyone.

If someone shouldn't use Linux and prefer Windows, for security reason (or else), you are the one who needs to back up your claims with solid data. Especially when the FR is not about anything else than supporting Flatpak.

I'm learning the basics of "using" it. But I'm interested in anything computers for 30+ years, I learned (and used) about anything related to it. Hardware, software,... Linux Included.

Every single piece of informations about the subjects of : security, openness, customization - go positively mostly towards OS based on Unix/Linux.

It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure). It can get broken at any time by anyone

As if Windows couldn't be broken at anytime by anyone, even without anyone's intervention. When you say something like that, you have to back it up with data, when the experience of people is the total opposite.

BMD is already supporting Linux with : Rocky Linux 8.6 and CentOS 7.3.

I personally would love to see them supporting Linux even more with this FR. The more people are discovering open source projects, and Linux ingeneral, the better it is.

The more people are discovering open source projects, and Linux in general, the better it is.[/b]

The Linux people have been saying this for the last 30 years... This year/next year Linux will be there.
It hasn't and won't
It has taken the server market but it won't take the desktop for the reasons Linus Torvold keeps saying.
You yourself have just highlighted the reason why.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03 ... -desktops/

Being against a free open source operating system that doesn't spy on you and is stable is pretty wild honestly.

But it doesn't matter.

Are you for or against a flatpak for Davinci Resolve? Because the FR is about this subject.
Since BMD is supporting Linux already, it would be cool if people would push for more freedom, even those who are not interesting in using open source softwares.

----------

It is important to understand the problems of the current model of packaging applications to understand the existence of Flatpak:

Code: Select all

Issues of current model of packaging

Duplicated work packaging apps: many Linux distributions come with their own package manager, package format and repository. This requires a lot of maintainers to package the same application in various distributions, or the application developer to learn the language of each format and then package the application in those distributions, or ignore most distributions and package and support a couple of distributions. This makes the Linux desktop a difficult platform for software vendors to target.

Limited to apps that are packaged: not all applications are natively available in every Linux distribution. If an application is not available in a specific distribution, the user will have to rely on manually downloading the archive of the application, extracting it and hoping the application will launch.

Limited to distributions that have the apps: the user is limited to the number of distributions that have the needed applications for them to properly setup their workflow. This reduces the amount of distributions that can be suitable for a user.

Hard to innovate in OS space: the maintainers of the distributions have to spend a lot of time packaging applications to make the distribution suitable for the end user, instead of focusing on their end goals. This delays the progress of each distribution.

Old and outdated packages: LTS distributions often have very old versions of applications packaged natively. Bug reproducibility is hindered by the different environments that applications are run in, and application developers often have little control over how their application is packaged by distributions.

You don't want to have Linux getting even better?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/linux-continues-growing-market-share-reaches-4-of-desktops/

Being against a free open source operating system that doesn't spy on you and is stable is pretty wild honestly.

Since BMD is supporting Linux already, it would be cool if people would push for more freedom, even those who are not interesting in using open source softwares.

Linux is NOT stable, and you have no idea if it spies on you or not.
Have you analysed the source code?

BTW it is not "Linux" spying on you buy any one of the thousands of unknown contributors to the kernel and distros can spy on you or put backdoors in.

da Vinci supported ONE and only one custom Linux. BMD only support one obsolete Linux and one other distribution.

I am not sure what "freedom" had to do with a commercial business.

It would be nice to have Resolve as a flatpak or appimage or snap or what-have-you, but its need to integrate tightly with graphics drivers that must talk to hardware but that are not shipped in the kernel fights a bit against the utility of packaging it this way, because each distribution will use a different version of the driver, or maybe put the driver libraries in a different location that requires some manual steps before they're found, etc.

That said, some work has been done to containerize Resolve such that you can run it via Docker. It's basically a set of scripts that create a container that runs CentOS which knows about your graphics hardware. It only works if you use Nvidia. https://github.com/fat-tire/resolve

Another way to try to use it on arbitrary Linux distros would be via Nix and NixGL: https://github.com/nix-community/nixGL . I've tried making it work on Ubuntu using this, but it currently does not. I'm not sure why not; it would be super useful if it did.

Most of your conclusions are wrong.
Dangerously so.

That would be nice If You could elaborate on that or at least try to reply to questions stated previously. You decided to omit this retorical questions and threw "You're wrong" without any backing so it's below any argument standards.
About LynxOS I was obviously wrong. I'm not really playing with RTOS systems. Last time at the university. So there is no FOSS RTOS kernel used particularly in aviation I would know about. That argument on Your side still holds despite of how ridiculous it is in the context of this thread if something is used in aviation or not. MacOS and Windows are also not running planes. And no one craves Davinci Resolve for aviation-grade PLC's. This argument is pure nonsense.

Linux is NOT stable

Ok. What does this statement actually mean and if so, do we have any stable alternative? I've had system crashes and app crashes on MacOS and Windows so do we have any perfectly stable desktop OS? And what's the point of this argument? We as customers want Resolve distributed in a form of flatpak for various reasons - convenience, stability, code separation etc. Are You against having that option or what?

you have no idea if it spies on you or not.

Yeah. And Your motherboard can have malicious BIOS and spy on You and send data before any OS launches. That's why security scheme should have many layers. However how does it add up to this thread about flatpak? Is closing sources adding up to user privacy in any way?

Have you analysed the source code?

Do I have to? I'm not a code security expert. There are people motivated by passion or paid to do this and doing it better than I ever could.

I am not sure what "freedom" had to do with a commercial business.

However big tech giants contributing to the FOSS projects somehow realised that it can be commercially profitable to do so. That pushing something upstream can be cheaper than maintaining code in-house.
And on the desktop market there is constant urge for GNU/Linux and supporting it becames more and more profitable. If Your competitor supports it and You decided not to then You're deliberately giving away some marketshare.

The Linux people have been saying this for the last 30 years...

And for the last 30 years it's true. Linux on desktop is getting better, more user-friendly, more compatible etc. every year and it's market share is also rising constantly. Hitting 4% on desktop recently.

Have you analysed the source code?

Do I have to? I'm not a code security expert. There are people motivated by passion or paid to do this and doing it better than I ever could.

Yes I know I have done it.

BTW re LynxOS I was involved in porting it to PowerQUIK 860. It was nice spending a UK winder in Silicon Valley.
You mention university, my degree was in Operating systems. Though most of my work has been with RTOS in critical systems.

Yes I know I have done it.

So I assume You used Your expertise to find possible security or stability issues in Linux kernel or widely used modules, You've actually found them and at least issued a bunch of bug reports to help the community?

my degree was in Operating systems. Though most of my work has been with RTOS in critical systems.

My degree is in mechatronics and in daily work I deal with mechanics, embedded systems etc. So in terms of code integrity on the level of possible obfuscated backdoor artifacts or bugs leading to vulnerabilities I can't par with Your expertise. It's quite far from my scope.

Yes I know I have done it.

So I assume You used Your expertise to find possible security or stability issues in Linux kernel or widely used modules, You've actually found them and at least issued a bunch of bug reports to help the community?

Yes and no. Yes, a lot of people have looked at Linux using a lot of sophisticated tools. I found it fascinating when I did it. No, I didn't do any bug reports. I was not looking into it for FSF etc. I do know a lot of people look into Linux to find ways of exploiting it for their employers (this wasn't why I was doing it). Also, least 7 governments I know of do this to find exploits they can use. they don't tell the Open Source community either.

my degree was in Operating systems. Though most of my work has been with RTOS in critical systems.

My degree is in mechatronics and in daily work I deal with mechanics, embedded systems etc. So in terms of code integrity on the level of possible obfuscated backdoor artifacts or bugs leading to vulnerabilities I can't par with Your expertise. It's quite far from my scope.

My other qualifications are in electronics and I worked on (part 3) and with IEC61508 also 50128/9 and a few others. I did work on securing critical systems.

Neither OSX nor Windows are angels by a long way, but Linux is, or can very easily be made far worse by almost anyone at any time. This is on a distro by distro and version by version basis. The threat analysis is rather different.

However, this is a long way from the question about Linux and flatpak. It is a hell of a lot of continual work for a very small market. Linux has been "going to be" the next big thing on the desktop for 30 years. It hasn't. The reason why not is obvious, in that flat pack is needed. If Linux were a single system like, Windows or IOS or the ONE version of Linux BMD supports then it would make sense to support "Linux" but the Linux market is a huge number of different and constantly changing targets. The work involved for the potential returns means it is not worth it. At least not commercially.

I do know a lot of people look into Linux to find ways of exploiting it for their employers (this wasn't why I was doing it). Also, least 7 governments I know of do this to find exploits they can use.

And no government/bad actor is looking into MacOS, iOS, Windows, Android, Tizen etc. to find and sell 0days or pursue some invigilation program? Especially in context of market size? I'm from Poland and recently there was an incident of government members spying on opposition leaders (and themselves too ) using Pegasus

No source code doesn't mean bugs can't be found or deployed by malicious workers. What was recently tried with xz lib on linux could possibly go on production under radar on any OS. Developer responsible for malicuous attempt was playing legitimate maintainer for years before the attempt... How many bad actors are hired in Microsoft, Apple, hardware providers? How many are wiling to be bribed?

Linux market is a huge number of different and constantly changing targets.

Which Flatpak, Appimage or Snap(with all controversy around) addresses that perfectly. No need to keep one crap for all if individual needs are different. However Linux distros are all mostly the same. Combinations of bunch of desktop environments, package systems, additional tools etc. That's not like we have thousands of totally different animals to maintain and audit. And not like whoever wants to load some minor hipster's distro Linux Hannah Montana deployed on production critical systems. So in a scope of security audit the workload is not as big as You try to depict it. A few major distros basically sharing most of the codebase.

The work involved for the potential returns means it is not worth it. At least not commercially.

Yet somehow Blackmagic still choose to support Linux. The issue is that they're doing it old-way which was only option years ago but it's insane to continue that way in 2024. And Their main competitors are not even trying to penetrate Linux market so They can rule it out quite easily as They already officially support Linux. Just change the distribution scheme and it's done. Is it profitable? Idk. If I could get flatpak version for additional fee I would be interested.

I use Resolve on Linux. It works. I hope Blackmagic Design continues to sell it on the platform.

I have no PhD in engineering, nor in computer science, but I would encourage anyone reading this to ignore the blanket proclamations of its insuitability to task even by folks that do. I've been using Linux as a main computing environment since 1998. I have used it every day for more than 25 years. I use it to develop software as my job.

Resolve was actually developed first on Linux, as I understand it, making its way to Mac and Windows after Blackmagic Design acquired it. And I'm sure many of the Blackmagic development staff still use it, as it's a wonderful development environment, often more convenient than MacOS or Windows. And while I understand why people would often prefer to use MacOS or Windows for productivity tasks, I'm not sure why the same folks feel the need to see it not be supported or sold on Linux, given that probably many of the Blackmagic staff are using it right now to *make* it.

Jamedia

People just want to be more free. It's not really hard to understand. And people don't want others to tell them, No, I don't want you to have more choice. What? - Especially when it doesn't affect them.

More choices = more freedom. Less monopolies = more freedom.
More ways to use Davinci Resolve on more computers = more freedom.

I bricked dozens and dozens of my Windows installs over the past 30 years; I had viruses; I had dying disks, etc. What's the point? Yes, you can kill any OS or computer.

It doesn't make sense to come here and argue about points that are irrelevant to the feature request. Which is: Make Davinci Resolve easier to install and use on ALL Linux distros. - This is a very positive feature request.

I personally want to be able to switch to Linux fully one day. And for that to happen, I'm supporting these open-source projects and their principles, even if I don't use them for everything.

I want them to exist and be mature, so when someone changes their mind down the line, alternatives exist. Having a way to use Davinci Resolve on all Linux distributions, like we would on all Windows machines, would do just that.

You just want to be right on a random forum online instead of helping others with things that could help them in their lives. It's not cool.

BlackMagic Design is supporting Linux. This simple fact should stop you right there.
Because if we follow your logic, they should just stop developing for Linux. I'm pretty sure their software engineers know what they are doing. And people on Linux are happy to be able to use Resolve "natively".

"Linux is not secure, so people shouldn't use Linux."  Then how do you make something better and more secure if you don't' want people to use it. With fewer people involved:? 

I didn't want to derail this thread more, but I can't sit there and just read people arguing in bad faith. Because, at the end of the day, it's not just about a piece of software. It's about the concepts of liberty and choice.

2024, Canva bought Serif with their Affinity suit...the only real alternative bought by a renting company. Horrible news.

There is a reason I never go against feature requests here. Because it's not about me. If it doesn't break something important to me, if I don't see it as something illogical, I don't care what's added to Resolve.

There are many features implemented over the years that I didn't care about, as requested by users here. And I used some of them today. I'm glad they exist.

That's the mindset people should have in this part of the forum.

• The feature request is breaking something fundamental and won't help the majority? : We can debate using facts and logic.
  
• The feature request removes something and/or takes an illogical path: We can debate, be against it and present logical reasons for that.
  
• The feature request, if implemented, will have no impact on someone's life; it will not change the way of using Davinci Resolve but would be very useful to someone? : We shouldn't dwell on it, and let BMD decide to add it on their list of future features.

Jamedia
BlackMagic Design is supporting Linux. This simple fact should stop you right there.

That shows you have no understanding of the problems nor the commercial implications.
There seems to be little point in carrying on this discussion.

BMD supports ONE, and only one, of version of Linux. There was a very good historical reason for that. Those users were paying in excess of £50K per seat. All Da VInci had to do was move from the previous POSIX compliant OS they were on before Linux. At the time, it was all pre-installed and came as a package.

When that one Linux went obsolete and unsupported, BMD moved to another one Linux that was a close relation. Until then new Linux moves too far from the first one, Resolve should run on both. Had it been even vaguely sensible, don't you think BMD would have done FlatPak then?
Linux would have been supported across many more similar Linux.

It simply isn't commercially viable. The original users of Resolve on Centos Linux were each paying more than 150 Resolve studio users now.

I don't mind what OS Resolve is on as long as it is not to the detriment of the one I am using. I am just trying to point out why it makes no sense economically in the cold light of day that you are highly unlikely to get a flatpak Linux. There are a LOT of other things that need fixing in Resolve before time and resource is put into a flatpak version.

EDIT
BTW in 1986 da Vinci sold a total of 60 units, installing 40 of them...
This is why they could use Linux. They did a specific Linux because they could do a custom version to work with their hardware. Indeed, it would not work without at least $30K of hardware (AFAIK the cheapest item of HW that you could get to make it work. At £300 a seat it is not commercialy viable.

There seems to be little point in carrying on this discussion.

That's one thing we can agree on!

That shows you have no understanding of the problems

For me the problem is lack of Flatpak install option for Davinci Resolve. Problem starts and ends on this.

MD supports ONE, and only one, of version of Linux.

Which is nonsense in current world and that's why users request for the change. There was cars without seatbelts or ONE and only one airbag. Things changes sometimes.

Those users were paying in excess of £50K per seat.

And Resolve was in completely different environment with competitors. And the target userbase was very narrow. However I can pay extra for a Flatpak version. Why not. If it's "commercially viable" for non-profits to provide a flatpak of their free app then I can't see any reason why it couldn't be "comercially viable" on paid app. It's not like they would need to invest idk 10% of their revenue to resolve this enormous technical difficulty Or to gear all devs for a year to accomplish.

Resolve should run on both.

Resolve should run on any sane distro able to run flatpak. That's the clear demand of current market.

There are a LOT of other things that need fixing in Resolve before time and resource is put into a flatpak version.

That could be stated for virtually ANY feature request. I'm ok waiting a little bit longer for all that urgent fixes. Resolve serves me well and was serving me well 3 years ago too so personally I'm not in a rush for other fixes. And I would be grateful when I would finally use my second drive for data instead of dedicated OS I need to reboot into every time I need to run Resolve.

This is why they could use Linux.

This is why it was convenient to them 40 years ago. Now They can use Flatpak (or simmilar) to deploy on virtually whatever users want and I see no reason why not to. They proudly point out Linux support on their website so that's one of the selling points marketing department saw worth mentioning. Not a historical gimmick They're ashamed of.

That shows you have no understanding of the problems

For me the problem is lack of Flatpak install option for Davinci Resolve. Problem starts and ends on this.

The rest of your post shows you have zero understanding of commercial Sw development.
I suspect that if you can get 500 people who will pay $1,000 each for a Linux Flatpak Resolve they might do one.
Though how much that is maintained would be another matter.

Why do you think they only ever actively supported ONE Linux, and that was when people were spending $100,000 or more a seat on it?
Linux is supported by BMD you just have to use the one they support.

It is not a stable platform (it is also not secure). It can get broken at any time by anyone

Linux is supported by BMD you just have to use the one they support.

Why do you want someone to use a non-secure platform that is unstable (your words)?! A fork of CentOS that was based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which is owned by IBM now, certainly doesn't know how to make stable and secure platforms.

By your own words, BMD shouldn't support Linux in any shape or form. You can write a FR about it and ask them to stop their support. Why not? Waste of resources on a non-secure and unstable platform. 

You realize that many people are using Davinci Resolve on other distros than Rocky OS already?

Code: Select all

Build for every distro
Create one app and distribute it to the entire Linux desktop market.

Stable platforms
Runtimes provide platforms for common libraries that you can depend on.

Consistent environments
Develop and test your application in an environment that’s identical to the one users have.

Full control over dependencies
Flatpak makes it easy to bundle your own libraries as part of your app.

It's just a more convenient way to install applications.

This FR doesn't concern you; since you don't use Linux (and don't like it), it has zero impact on your use of Davinci Resolve.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=198780 :

That said, lets be supportive of these ideas and avoid criticism of the suggestions here.

You're not interested in things related to Linux, that's fine. You don't care about flatpack, that's fine.
Just let this FR be.

You are twisting words to mean other things.
You are also confusing more than one thing.
This is pointless.
It is also the problem that most Linux people are religious about it.

Jamedia
BlackMagic Design is supporting Linux. This simple fact should stop you right there.

That shows you have no understanding of the problems nor the commercial implications.
There seems to be little point in carrying on this discussion.

BMD supports ONE, and only one, of version of Linux. There was a very good historical reason for that. Those users were paying in excess of £50K per seat. All Da VInci had to do was move from the previous POSIX compliant OS they were on before Linux. At the time, it was all pre-installed and came as a package.

When that one Linux went obsolete and unsupported, BMD moved to another one Linux that was a close relation. Until then new Linux moves too far from the first one, Resolve should run on both. Had it been even vaguely sensible, don't you think BMD would have done FlatPak then?
Linux would have been supported across many more similar Linux.

It simply isn't commercially viable. The original users of Resolve on Centos Linux were each paying more than 150 Resolve studio users now.

I don't mind what OS Resolve is on as long as it is not to the detriment of the one I am using. I am just trying to point out why it makes no sense economically in the cold light of day that you are highly unlikely to get a flatpak Linux. There are a LOT of other things that need fixing in Resolve before time and resource is put into a flatpak version.

EDIT
BTW in 1986 da Vinci sold a total of 60 units, installing 40 of them...
This is why they could use Linux. They did a specific Linux because they could do a custom version to work with their hardware. Indeed, it would not work without at least $30K of hardware (AFAIK the cheapest item of HW that you could get to make it work. At £300 a seat it is not commercialy viable.

+1 for an official Flatpak version.

Not only would it make DaVinci Resolve installable on all Linux distros, it would also have the potential to be more secure thanks to Flatpak sandboxing.

A lot of the work has been done by the open-source community at https://github.com/pobthebuilder/resolve-flatpak . Blackmagic would just have to take that code and officially support it.

+1 for an official Flatpak version.

Not only would it make DaVinci Resolve installable on all Linux distros, it would also have the potential to be more secure thanks to Flatpak sandboxing.

A lot of the work has been done by the open-source community at https://github.com/pobthebuilder/resolve-flatpak . Blackmagic would just have to take that code and officially support it.

My understanding is that Flatpak only works on a small selection of distros. Nowhere near all of them, or even most of them? There have been several posts in this thread explaining why Flatpak is not the silver bullet it appears. I would want to wait until Flatpak is universal on 90% of Linux Distros and the problems ironed out. The Open Source community is big on announcing grand schemes, but they usually fragment and wander off the roadmap(s)

NOTE BMD will get long term, stable, roadmaps from both Microsoft and Apple under NDA's in a way it is simply not possible for Linux. This makes planning very easy for Windows and IOS but very difficult for Linux. The one Linux BMD used they had some control over.

Then you are suggesting that BMD has to officially support a FlatPak. This is an additional work load for a very, small number of users.

I would suggest that if they are going to do that, a Flatpak Linux would not be free. The Linux BMD supports at the moment is the one that the BIG studios paid for (in execs of £250,000 a seat when they also bought hardware) The free version of the paid for Linux version only came years after the Mac and Windows versions and that was the one they already supported.

This is a request to Blackmagic Design, not Jamedia.

They have teams of engineers. They have marketing people, they have a CEO.

This is a big company; they decide if something is worth their time or not. They don't need anyone to tell them if something is a bad idea. The only thing this does is gas-lighting the people requesting the feature.

This forum is there to suggest features. That's it. If a feature is not interesting to you, Skip it!

This is the pinned thread on this forum :

We appreciate the input from people who use our software and have suggestions/ideas on how it can be improve your usage. Additionally, offering support for other requests that have been posted already is great feedback as well. That said, lets be supportive of these ideas and avoid criticism of the suggestions here.

I would suggest that if they are going to do that, a Flatpak Linux would not be free. The Linux BMD supports at the moment is the one that the BIG studios paid for (in execs of £250,000 a seat when they also bought hardware) The free version of the paid for Linux version only came years after the Mac and Windows versions and that was the one they already supported.

Come on :/

Imagine if anyone would go on one of your FR, and suggest they implement it only if you pay more for it. Do you realize how insulting it is to tell to anyone: You don't need this, because I say so.

Good luck to you.

Imagine if anyone would go on one of your FR, and suggest they implement it only if you pay more for it. Do you realize how insulting it is to tell to anyone: You don't need this, because I say so.

Good luck to you.

I don't need luck. I have just retired from running my own SW and electronics company for the last few decades. I know the inside of software and electronics development and the costs. Further, I am fully aware, because I work with a company that does have Linux hosted software, what the costs and overheads are (like BMD their Linux supported kit is expensive at £15K upwards per seat).