As a dedicated Linux user for 20 years and a newcomer to laser engraving, I was deeply disappointed to learn about the decision to end support for the Linux version of LightBurn. I understand the challenges involved, particularly given the diversity of Linux distributions, but I believe there may be a more practical way forward that could alleviate your burden while preserving Linux compatibility.
Rather than attempting to cater to multiple distributions, focusing on a single, universal solution could address many of the difficulties you’ve encountered. For instance, a standalone *.run installer—already part of your current offering—might be sufficient for the vast majority of Linux users. This approach would allow the Linux community to handle the specifics of adapting LightBurn to various distributions, such as Debian, Fedora, or Arch.
While AppImage and Ubuntu-specific packages may be useful to some, they might not be strictly necessary for you to maintain. Many in the Linux community, myself included, prefer simpler solutions that empower us to manage installation and integration ourselves. By providing a universal installer, you could significantly reduce your maintenance workload while still offering Linux users a functional starting point. Where additional support is needed, the Linux community can provide the necessary packaging and tutorials, as we do for thousands of other software packages—some even entirely developed and maintained by the community for free.
I kindly urge you to reconsider your decision and explore this lightweight approach with the community. By focusing on a universal format like the *.run file, you could maintain a presence in the Linux ecosystem without requiring extensive ongoing support for individual distributions.
Thank you for your consideration. LightBurn has been a game-changer for so many users, and I hope this solution could help ensure that the Linux community continues to benefit from your excellent software.
Most companies survive because they can make money. I don’t think Lightburn has made a dime on Linux systems. Even if they narrowed the scope.
Might want to read about why they are not doing this, many have had similar suggested in this thread…
Glad they did, but the realistic world of Linux is, pretty much, if it doesn’t make money it will be abandoned/discontinued.
We are lucky to have developers that work for nothing to keep it alive… When was the last time you donated actual money to one of the Linux distros? Few of us do, but most do not.
I know it sucks, but that’s pretty much how the world works…
I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion. Lightburn is not free, all their linux users, including myself, did pay the same amount to use it as do Windows and Mac users.
The perception that there is no money in Linux is very very wrong. Linux is big business actually. There are people that only use it because its free. But there are also people that became billionaires because of Linux (like the youngest billionaire of Belgium, which I worked for, Fabien Pinckaers)
As you could make out of my post, I did read all of the discussion you are copy pasting here. All I try to do is proposing a solution that solves the only problem they have with Linux. Making 1 installer per OS is not a lot of work, and I speak out of experience.
But all that extra like AppImage, Docker, … and so on is a lot of work, and should not be done by the company itself.
I don’t know what else to tell you… It costs a lot of money to support Linux at all, even at a restricted distro. The Linux portion of Lightburn costs them money. If it did make money, it’d still be supported.
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard all of your arguments and believe they are answered (somewhere) in the first link posted…
Most of these developers like and use Linux, I’m sure they don’t like it either.
Don’t know what else to tell you, things that don’t make money go away at some point …
However, I’m sure others will speak up and you can pick it up with them.
As I can make out of your way of talking, you are not part of the team, so you are just guessing. I made installers for windows, linux and IOS, Since all linux users are paying, making 1 installation script, that is actually almost the same for every version with every big version change maybe 2 lines of difference, it really doesn’t cost money, especially since there will still be Linux users coming as new customers.
The problem is that Linux users try to get different flavors of the installers. But at my companies, we would just say we don’t do that because it is something the community can do themself. So my suggestion to LightBurn is to say the same thing.
But my message is for the developers of Lightburn, and not for you. No hard feelings.
I don’t work for them, but I understand development and associated costs. You apparently do not understand that Linux support, of any kind, costs them money, even if Linux users do have to buy the software.
It comes down to simple economics, if they made money or could justify it, it would still be available.
Unless you wish to take on all the support, builds and changes that have to be made, they feel they are loosing money.
Don’t get upset, I use Linux myself, but realize what it takes to maintain this on multiple platforms and ongoing development.
You should let others comment before closing a thread, everyone has got an opinion.
I am a developer myself, for commercial companies. I also have my own company. I understand the ins and outs very well.
As a Linux user, that (I suppose) paid also, please stop responding against your own interest. I try to find a solution that costs much less than it gains.
All work cost time, and thus money one or the other way, but that is not what this is about. There are probably as little or less Apple users with a laser engraver as there are with Linux.
The upside with Linux is that you can make the community work for you and most companies use that to their advantage. And that is the solution I try to propose and I which I would be willing to be an active, and positive, contribution.
@jkwilborn may not work for us but he’s 100% correct in his assessment.
Supporting Linux did, in fact, cost us money. I personally did the math and even in the best case scenario, the amount of time spent on it cost us more than we made in license sales to Linux users.
Very much not the case. Linux was at best 1% of our user base, whereas Apple users makes up 15% of our user base.
Letting the community take care of packing for you doesn’t really work in the case of a close source, proprietary software package. We would have to provide far more access to the internals of LightBurn then we are willing to. In part because it’s also, as we noted many times in the various linked threads, not just a packaging issue. There was still a lot of platform specific code work that needed to be done.
And we have no lack of people on the team here that understand Linux packaging. I, myself, came to LightBurn from Red Hat where I was in charge of building and packaging OpenShift. At least a third of the dev team daily drive Linux for their own systems.
I understand your disappointment, I really do. I didn’t want to drop Linux at all. But, in the end, it was the decision I had to make for the sake of the other 99% of our user base.
