

To play devils advocate: please name me an entire open source list of alternatives for each part of affinity studio/adobe suite.
For bonus points, all programs should be mutually agreed by other people as “the best not Adobe” and for extra extra points, they should all be part of a studio package for ease of installation for creatives
Now if someone made these demands in an open source thread they’d probably get a new asshole ripped open for being entitled with such requirements for free software. Instead, someone is saying they’d pay for affinity Linux software that meets this criteria but youre telling them to use open source which is not helpful.
Don’t get me wrong, open source is great. I do use gimp but i still need alternatives to affinity studio and it would’ve made moving to Linux much easier if i could use affinity on Linux.
Developers make software because they want to, or because they are paid to.
Consumers can use free software because it fits their needs, or they can pay for software if the free options don’t suffice.
Consumer demand for paid software drives paid software development.
You claim to be an open source developer, cool. There are people who are not developers who can’t contribute code but still want software. Sometimes that software needs to be paid because some free options aren’t “there” yet. Yes they could pay or donate to open source developers, but they can also tell a company they want to pay for linux software which is what this thread is about, in a community that isn’t focused on open source software