Why Linux is Becoming Impossible for Audio Developers to Ignore

[TechHaus]

I don't really think that is the consideration. I think devs go: does my copy protection scheme support Linux? No? Ok, can't develop for it. (similar to gaming companies that use certain anti-cheats for online gaming).

And nobody is lobbying for Pace to bring their wares over here.

In fact, there is a thread started by user audiojunkie about acceptable licensing schemes. A lot of devs don't abide by those, and probably never will. They are a lost cause. No begging for those.

[Tiles]

That's not what I am talking about.

We are discussing market reality versus support cost and ecosystem fragmentation, not copy protection or licensing schemes.

I’ll leave it here.

[TechHaus]

I have once developed a game with a Linux binary too. Made with Unity. It runs on Ubuntu 12.04. And nowhere else. THis is my "market" for this game on the Linux side. I labeled it "the Linux version".

I didn't ask what you did, I asked what u-he and audio damage did. Since you don't know, you should test them.

Ignorance is not bliss.

And also maybe take another look at the gaming industry. You are citing a Linux distro from 2012!

And we know you had to edit your post...

[Tiles]

I’m not going to continue this in this direction.

Have a good one.

[TechHaus]

I’m not going to continue this in this direction.

Have a good one.

Just try non-ubuntu and see what happens with a u-he or audio damage installer.

Here's the May 2026 Steam survey stats if you need help picking one:

[Tone2 Synthesizers]

Steam and Steam machine targets gamers. That's why CachyOS and SteamOS is popular there. These are special distros for gaming. The above listing has no relevance at all for audio production.
More interesting distros for audio production are those with a smooth WINE integration like Zorin.

Developers avoid Linux for these reasons:
- Fragmentation and therefor high costs and effort for testing
- High costs for mainteance to keep things working
- Poor documentation
- Janky driver support
- Incompatibility with their copy protections, especially when this one depends on special drivers
- Too few paying customers. On top of this the mindset of many Linux users is that 'software must be free'

Don't get me wrong. I am not a Linux hater. I dislike many things that Microsoft and Apple does and I am using Zorin and AnduinOS on two of my own devices.

It has become difficult to survive in a overcrowded audio market. On top of this there is now also AI slop. This makes it even more difficult to keep good products visible. Most audio companies got no money or time at all left for doing experiments with Linux.

We made sure that our software works well with WINE. As a tiny company this is all we can do with reasonable costs and effort.

[antto]

music on linux will probably get going better once the devs decide to move to linux

i realized that some years ago, but i'm not a great example of a dev. i've written a bunch of non-music programs for linux already, i'm using linux for 99.9% of everything i need from a PC, except for music creation (that's not linux's fault tho)


to actually start using linux for music - i will need to pick a new DAW first, i'll also need to buy a new PC because my current "music PC" is very lousy spec-wise
i'm thinking of getting Renoise, at the same time i like that it's tracker-based and find it hard to get used to it (as i'm not familiar with trackers). but i've heard mostly good things about Renoise.
i'll need a new soundcard too, because i have more devices that make sound than i have inputs on my current soundcard
and, all my unfinished tracks will go in the trash unfortunately (and i have a lot)

and then there's the "problem" with the plugins.. i'll basically need to rewrite my plugins (and/or just forget some of them (they are un-savable) and just make new ones)

one thing is 101% certain for me, i will not be going back to a payware OS (this is now easier as i said, i can do 99% of things on debian, and some (many?) of them work even better/easier)

[Tiles]

Fair points. As a developer, though, I am multi-platform anyway, so I don’t tie myself to a single OS. And that's how most developers approaches.

What you are describing is actually the real issue. The barrier is not “choosing Linux”, but migrating an entire production environment: DAW workflow, plugin ecosystem, existing projects, hardware interfaces, and ongoing project compatibility. That switching cost is massive, regardless of the target platform.

[BertKoor]

copy the binaries into a Zip file along with a Readme that tells where to place the binaries.

This is difficult enough on Windows already, and Linux cares even less what's where (as long as the set owner and permissions make it accessible)

[Tiles]

Yep. One does not simply zip a binary on Linux.

ZIP files don’t reliably preserve executable permissions, and on Linux those permissions are required for a program to run.

Linux applications are also typically not distributed as self-contained bundles. Instead, dependencies are expected to be provided by the system. If extra libraries are needed, they must be placed where the dynamic linker can find them, and that varies between distributions.

Because of this, ZIP-based distribution is usually a workaround rather than a proper deployment method on Linux.

[BertKoor]

One of my favorite Youtube tech channels just released this 2 hours ago:

I Left Windows a Year Ago... Was It Worth It?

But wait, she just said she switched to Mac!

[legendCNCD]

'Devs "deciding" to move to Linux' - that would be suicide for the products.

[stoopicus]

One of my favorite Youtube tech channels just released this 2 hours ago:

I Left Windows a Year Ago... Was It Worth It?

But wait, she just said she switched to Mac!

Someday she will find her knight in shining armor.

[stoopicus]

In fact, there is a thread started by user audiojunkie about acceptable licensing schemes. A lot of devs don't abide by those, and probably never will. They are a lost cause. No begging for those.

Why should devs bother adapting their licensing schemes for Linux when they have far higher sales elsewhere?

This is not a rhetorical question - if you want developers to come to the platform you need to give them a reason to do so. If it is not worth their time, why would they?

Put another way, why are linux users in a position to define what an "acceptable" license is? Why should the devs not simply ignore you and continue just shipping for profitable platforms?

These are serious questions linux users need to answer if they want to attract devs. "Come to linux, but only on our terms" won't work.

[Largos]

Why should devs bother adapting their licensing schemes for Linux when they have far higher sales elsewhere?

This is not a rhetorical question - if you want developers to come to the platform you need to give them a reason to do so. If it is not worth their time, why would they?

Put another way, why are linux users in a position to define what an "acceptable" license is? Why should the devs not simply ignore you and continue just shipping for profitable platforms?

These are serious questions linux users need to answer if they want to attract devs. "Come to linux, but only on our terms" won't work.

"I'm only going to buy your product if it works for the operating system on my machine" is also a term and hardly an unreasonable one. Also any user is regardless of what OS they use is in a position to define an acceptable license.

The bigger question is why do most users per se think restrictive licenses are acceptable? Regardless of platform. I don't know how many times people need to get burnt by them.