Linux Audio Development Initiative

Hello Native Instruments team.

Since the Linux market is growing, and more and more people are using Linux, perhaps someone from Native Instruments should consider checking this out:

https://linuxaudio.dev/

Amadeus Paulussen is spearheading the movement, and this page basically covers the reasons why developers should look into Linux as a viable option.

This is also to anyone interested in using Linux in the future for professional audio production and recording.

Find more posts tagged with

Linux

Comments

Matthew_NI

We have no plans to support Linux at this time.

The cost to implement, support and maintain is too great, given the niche market opportunity.

Sharkuel

Thank you for the response, Matthew.

I understand the business challenges of supporting a new platform, especially one perceived as niche.

But I believe the notion that Linux is still a "niche market" is becoming outdated, especially in creative and tech-savvy communities.

The rise of projects like PipeWire, the growth of professional-grade distributions like AVLinux and Ubuntu Studio, and the significant momentum behind linuxaudio.dev are all clear indicators that Linux audio is maturing quickly.

More importantly:

A growing number of audio professionals, musicians, and developers are embracing Linux, not because it's free, but because it offers control, stability, and minimal system overhead.
The plugin ecosystem is expanding, with companies like Surge, Vital, and Zrythm going open-source or offering Linux support.
Major digital audio tools like REAPER and Bitwig already support Linux natively, showing that support is not only feasible, but also appreciated by a passionate and growing user base.

We are not asking for full-scale support overnight, even offering VST3 builds or open-sourcing legacy tools (where feasible) could be a massive goodwill gesture and a way to test the waters. Supporting standards like LV2, VST3, or making Kontakt libraries easier to load via Wine/LinVST or yabridge could be a stepping stone.

Linux users tend to be highly technical, loyal, and vocal, the kind of community that becomes brand ambassadors. Just look at Valve, for example. They've been invested in Linux since 2012–2013, and by 2025, they saw one of their most successful years revenue-wise, driven in part by Linux-supported hardware and their strong commitment to Linux gaming. This has helped foster a robust ecosystem that now includes content creation and professional video/audio workflows on Linux.

Ignoring that group may seem like a cost-saving measure today, but in the long run, it might mean missing out on an important segment of forward-looking creatives, as it has been proven with the rise of gaming derived content creation on Linux, and Video editing.

Thanks for your time and for keeping the door open to this discussion.

BIF

Asks quesion, "Linux?"

We have no plans to support Linux at this time.
The cost to implement, support and maintain is too great, given the niche market opportunity.

Answer: "No".

Thanks for your time and for keeping the door open to this discussion.

Response: "Thanks for keeping door open to discussion."

=============================

Denial of the strongest sort.

Windows and Mac together provide music capability to 96% of computer users who use their computers to create and record music. The number could be closer to 98%. I don't think you can call that "growing".

Very few to no other music tool/instrument makers support Linux either, and there's a reason for that. It's too expensive, requires way more development people (and you have to pay them and provide benefits). All this, and it's only a "nice to do". You can't let a "nice to do" make you go out of business.

Add to that the fact that this is a time when Native Instruments is in the beginnings of insolvency proceedings, with the hopes that they can eventually come OUT of this in a healthy and strong form.

When you ALREADY have made your software available to 96% of all music makers who use computers to make music, you don't need to take on the added risk and expense of getting that last 4%. In fact, it would be pure folly, because most Linux users are looking for "free" anyway. So going for 4% of the market, knowing that that same 4% is really only motivated by "freeware", well then, it's just an all-around bad business proposition. Just another quick way to turn $10 million into $10.

And let's take it back to the insolvency filing. With this filing, they will probably be required to engage the services of an "insolvency manager". If my understanding on that is correct, then that person is going to have a lot of power and control over Native Instruments' future plans, at least until they exit this declared "insolvency state".

What does that mean? Well, I'm no expert, but an educated guess would be that if NI even THINKS about supporting an OS that only 2% to 4% of music creatives use, their insolvency manager would immediately move to cancel such a careless and folly proposal. I know I would cancel it.

And then there's this. NI has had some challenges in recent years; most notably, a failed launch of the Komplete Kontrol S MK 3 keyboard controller's software. This was such a bad launch. It's been 3 years now, and the software is "better", but still not where it should be. And they're just supporting Mac and Windows!

This is the WORST time to even be thinking about Linux.

Sharkuel

Totally fair to say NI has to prioritize where it spends engineering and support time, and if Matthew’s answer is “no plans,” that’s the official stance right now.

But I think your reply takes a few assumptions and turns them into hard conclusions, and it also frames Linux users in a way that doesn’t really match reality in pro audio, specially due to bias/ignorance over Linux itself.

First, “no plans at this time” isn’t the same thing as “never.” Companies say it that way because roadmaps change with market signals, tooling, partnerships, and resourcing. I’m not claiming NI is secretly about to ship Linux builds. I’m just saying it’s normal for communities to keep making the case, and it’s also normal for a company to leave wording open-ended even if the answer today is “not happening.”

Second, the market share argument is real, but it’s not the only input, and it isn’t frozen forever. The more relevant question for NI isn’t “what percent of all computer musicians use Linux today,” it’s whether there’s a meaningful group of high-intent buyers being missed, whether new creators in tech-heavy circles are forming habits on Linux, and whether the cost to enter could be approached in a way that isn’t reckless. Something can be “niche” and still matter strategically if the users are engaged, spend money, and influence others, and audio communities are exactly like that. But given current circumstances, I understand that such shouldn't be their priority.

Third, the idea that Linux users mostly just want “free” doesn’t really hold up. People on Linux pay for software that works and is supported. In creative tools generally, there are plenty of paid products with Linux versions, and in audio specifically, Bitwig sells Linux licenses, REAPER has a native Linux version and is famously paid (even if generous), and a lot of professionals pay for stability and time saved more than anything.

Presonus didn't had plans to support Linux for years, and in 2024 they released the Studio One 6.5 on Linux, and they actually did something cool with the community, they essentially made a beta available for paying users and let users test and provide feedback, and the Linux community actually are no strangers to tinker and find solutions, and report back their findings in through fairly complete tickets and reports, and that speed up development considerably. And that opened the doors for Linux users to also go ahead and purchase their hardware as well.

Another example is Decent Sampler. The software itself is free, but users can develop sound libraries to it, and that's how revenue is made in their case, where fellow Linux musicians and producers create and support each other.

Painting the whole Linux user base motivated by freeware is an old stereotype, and it doesn’t reflect how many of us actually behave, especially the people doing serious production work.

Fourth, the cost and support burden argument matters, but it’s not necessarily an all-or-nothing choice. “Linux support” can mean many things. Nobody is realistically asking NI to fully support every distro, port the entire catalog, and provide the same level of support as Windows/macOS overnight. There are smaller, lower-risk ways to test demand without betting the company. Even things like officially documenting a “best effort” Wine/yabridge path for a limited set of products, trying a single pilot release, or making a few platform-agnostic changes that reduce compatibility blockers can move things forward without committing to a huge support operation. And a lot of those improvements would help Windows and macOS users too, funnily enough.

Fifth, NI being in the beginnings of insolvency proceedings is a really serious situation, but for years Linux users have been asking for the NI software to become available as well on Linux, the market opportunity is there, regardless, always been. And this post was created before such was announced, mind you, so using that argument to reinforce any concept of "denial of the strongest sort" comes in really bad faith.

Finally, your point about the Komplete Kontrol MK3 launch is actually a good reason for incremental steps, not a reason to dismiss Linux entirely. If NI has struggled shipping and stabilizing a major platform experience on Windows and macOS, then the sensible takeaway is “don’t take on a massive additional commitment.” But that’s exactly why people suggest small, measurable pilots with clear boundaries rather than “port everything.” The “turn $10 million into $10” risk comes from trying to do too much at once, not from simply acknowledging that the Linux audio ecosystem is maturing and that there are low-risk ways to evaluate it. I will go to such lengths to say that since Pipewire was released, Linux audio production is on par with Mac, and surpasses Windows, that still relies on ASIO drivers to be even usable. The audio routing possibilities are absolutely fantastic.

So yeah, if NI’s final answer stays “no,” that’s their choice and I get it. I just think it should be based on accurate assumptions and ideally verifiable facts, not on “Linux users don’t pay”.

I actually invite everyone to try Linux, and draw your own conclusions. This is no longer 1998, the Linux landscape has changed considerably.

Vocalpoint

"So yeah, if NI’s final answer stays “no,” that’s their choice and I get it. I just think it should be based on accurate assumptions and ideally verifiable facts, not on “Linux users don’t pay”.

Their decision (if one could even call it that) has been broadcast far and wide on this board over multiple threads for months now. Until their answer changes - it is already No. And that appears to be VERY final.

The facts speak for themselves. No need to revisit those.

And if you haven't been keeping up - NI now has their very survival on the table for the next few months. The last thing they would ever be thinking about right now (or in the future) is supporting Linux.

Sharkuel

Hello VP,

I understand your point of view, but without Linux users asking for it, they will never see that there is actually any demand for it to begin with. And yes, I am aware of the current situation, like I replied to BIF, this post was created before the insolvency situation was announced.

And honestly, I wish that this stereotype that Linux users are a bunch of freeloaders dies already.

This is a very small group within the community, and usually they are called out and even made fun of for being so out of touch.

"The facts speak for themselves. No need to revisit those."

Those may have been factual 15 years ago, but recently, a lot has changed, hence my initial post, for NI to actually revisit the topic, but given current circumstances, I doubt they will.

Presonus also been for years saying they would not support Linux, and here we are now.

On another note, I fail to understand why Windows/Mac users have that itch to whenever they see someone asking for something to become available on Linux, to talk down to said Linux users, using very outdated arguments to try and make a point, something that I have also seen in this forum. But I digress.

Vocalpoint

https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/256000#Comment_256000

@Sharkuel

Thanks for the measured commentary.

If you will allow me - a few comments on your "comments" :)

"I understand your point of view, but without Linux users asking for it, they will never see that there is actually any demand for it to begin with. And yes, I am aware of the current situation, like I replied to BIF, this post was created before the insolvency situation was announced"

Understood. However - now that the "news" is out there - hoping that everyone can see where the focus for NI is right now. It is not on asking for more stuff - right now.

"And honestly, I wish that this stereotype that Linux users are a bunch of freeloaders dies already"

Also understood. However the stereotype can only be changed if the user group enacts change. Start paying top dollar for all your software and you might see a change in perception. I know this is a "chicken and egg" vibe - but it is what it is.

"This is a very small group within the community, and usually they are called out and even made fun of for being so out of touch."

While I fully admit I have responded to these Linux posts - I do not believe I have called anyone out and certainly have not made fun of any specific user - if I have - my profuse apologies. That said - your choice of words here is bang on - "very small group"

This (to me anyways) IS the crux of this ask - especially from the business angle. The main issue as I see it (and judging by what NI has shared) IS that you guys ARE a small group.

So small in fact that until this group could somehow supply and maintain a level of cash flow that could justify even the tiniest of Linux exploration - there is no chance this ever takes off.

NI is a business (not a hobby table) and right now - it appears they are a business in financial dire straits - EVEN when selling product to what has always been their two core markets - the very large and very populous Windows and Mac communities.

If they cannot maintain their margins selling to us - what exactly is the Linux community going to do that's different? You simply cannot backup with any facts or stats whatsoever that there are 20,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 paying Linux users out there that would make such a venture worthwhile - both for you and for the company.

Now - I am just spit balling the paying user group size here - but until a scenario presents itself that makes any work justifiable - this is the key problem your group needs to solve (and remember when asking).

"Presonus also been for years saying they would not support Linux, and here we are now"

This point really needs some clarity. To be very clear - Fender/Presonus - in no way "supports" Linux at any level. You cannot call them, you cannot ask any technical question of them - nothing in the way of traditional support exists whatsoever.

The existence of a Studio Pro installer from Linux in no way suddenly means Fender/Presonus is in the "Linux" business now. Also - insider tip - this Linux version is/was a project created in the backroom some years ago as a little proof of concept by one developer with time on his hands.

This is exactly what it remains today. Permanent public beta - play with it at your leisure - no support - ever. You are on your own.

and finally:

"On another note, I fail to understand why Windows/Mac users have that itch to whenever they see someone asking for something to become available on Linux, to talk down to said Linux users, using very outdated arguments to try and make a point, something that I have also seen in this forum"

I can only speak for myself from a Windows perspective - but my "itch" is more from a support angle than anything else. I (and many other NI users) have spent tens of thousands over the years on product (me since 2002), hung out on this forum for years and been in the trenches on many an issue for years at a time.

While I have no issue with the Linux gang joining the fray - I will take issue if it is done wrong. And by that I mean a lack of planning, lack of resource and a potential lack of attention to those of us who got these guys this far.

If Linux came on board and was not resourced properly - so much so that the same support crew that handles PC and Mac now - now has to contend with 42 Linux questions per hour and IF I need help with something - my response comes two weeks later - you can see where that is going to land.

Same applies to DEV. Some of us have had VERY heated back and forths here on products that NI swears they are going to fix - yet remain unfixed. Some untouched for years etc etc.

Adding Linux into a limited DEV pool (IF it ever went commercial) simply means existing Windows/Mac requests and new requests simple slide further down the road - most likely into obscurity.

To sum up - the answers to the above and all the rest of Linux saga - always comes down to one question -

Where's the cash coming from and who is going to pay the tab?

If you guys want to keep asking - that's great - but remember - us PC and Mac guys n gals ARE paying (and have paid) huge sums of cash for our stuff (year in and year out) and it's still not enough judging by recent developments.

Call me crazy but I think the last thing NI needs right now is more overhead with a unproven platform coupled with zero guarantees of recouping any costs whatsoever.

Sharkuel

Hello @VocalPoint

Thank you for your response, but I feel that I need to focus on some points here, specially given that I believe you missed the context of one of them:

"And honestly, I wish that this stereotype that Linux users are a bunch of freeloaders dies already.
This is a very small group within the community, and usually they are called out and even made fun of for being so out of touch. "

What I meant with the above is that, yes, there are still those FOSS "keep your proprietary BS from my linux" kinda people, but within the Linux community, that is a very small group, a dying breed, given that a lot of new users are actually gamers and content creators that made the switch, either displeased with how Microsoft is handling Windows, or simply because they have better performance overall.

On the “Linux users need to start paying top dollar” point: many already do. The issue isn’t willingness to pay in the abstract; it’s that for a lot of audio software, Linux users literally can’t pay because there’s no supported product to buy. So “prove you’ll pay by paying” becomes a bit circular.

A more realistic approach is the Presonus example: a limited, clearly bounded offering that lets a company measure real adoption and revenue without promising the world. Even if Presonus calls it “public beta / no support,” it still demonstrates something important: there are enough motivated users to download it, try it, and keep the conversation alive. And that kind of pilot is exactly the sort of “proof” companies usually look for before committing bigger resources.

Again, Valve is a good real-world example that Linux users are willing to spend money when the product is compelling and the experience is smooth. They didn’t just “support Linux” in a symbolic way, they invested heavily in Proton and the surrounding ecosystem so that games and software (including many Windows titles sold on Steam) run well on Linux. The Steam Deck, which is Linux-based, also showed that Linux can sit at the center of a mainstream commercial product and still drive strong software and hardware sales when friction is reduced.

Another practical example is DaVinci Resolve. Blackmagic has offered a Linux version for years, and Resolve has become a go-to editor for a lot of creators, including people working on Linux workstations. That matters because it’s not a “freeware-only” pattern, it’s a case where a professional, paid tool is adopted on Linux when it’s available, and the user base grows through word of mouth across platforms (Linux, Windows, and macOS).

Heck, I can share with you, even from the audio production side of things, a website where we keep track of all available audio software in Linux, from DAW's to Plugins:
https://linuxdaw.org/

"If Linux came on board and was not resourced properly - so much so that the same support crew that handles PC and Mac now - now has to contend with 42 Linux questions per hour and IF I need help with something - my response comes two weeks later - you can see where that is going to land."

"Adding Linux into a limited DEV pool (IF it ever went commercial) simply means existing Windows/Mac requests and new requests simple slide further down the road - most likely into obscurity."

I am sorry, but even though I don’t actually disagree with the core business reality you’re pointing at: NI has to protect cash flow, where I think we still diverge is that you’re treating the Linux conversation as if the only two options are “full commercial Linux product with full support” or “nothing.”

I’m not advocating the first option, especially not right now. I’m arguing that there are sensible, low-overhead ways to gauge demand and reduce friction without turning NI into a Linux support desk overnight or pulling focus away from Windows/macOS customers.

If NI is in a period where they’re fighting for stability, I agree it makes sense to prioritize fixing what exists rather than widening the surface area. That said, there’s still a middle ground that doesn’t require NI to spin up a full Linux port or overload the current support/dev teams.

One option would be collaborating with the Wine/CodeWeavers folks (many Mac users will recognize that name from CrossOver) to improve compatibility so NI software runs reliably under Wine. That lets NI keep the same Windows-focused pipeline while still expanding reach to Linux users in a controlled way.

Even something as simple as publishing an “unsupported but tested” path — for example, “this version works with Wine + yabridge under these conditions” — with an explicit policy like “we don’t take Linux tickets and we won’t divert the main support queue” would go a long way. It gives Linux users a realistic route without creating new expectations or slowing down existing Windows/macOS customers.

And on your support/dev concern, I honestly think that’s the most valid part of your whole reply. Longtime Windows/macOS customers absolutely should not get slower support or slower fixes because a third platform got added without staffing.

But again, that’s an argument against doing Linux “for real” prematurely, not an argument against any Linux-related movement at all. If anything, it supports the idea that if NI ever touches Linux, it needs to be done with strict separation: explicitly unsupported compatibility guidance, or a sandboxed pilot, or a single product trial with a very clear “no impact to core support queues” policy.

So I think we can agree on the main thing: NI shouldn’t add overhead or promise support they can’t deliver, and current customers shouldn’t pay the price for it. Where I’m still comfortable pushing back is the framing that asking is somehow irresponsible or that it inherently implies “take resources away from us.”

Asking can also mean: “Here’s a low-risk way to test demand without harming your current base.” That’s the spirit of why I posted in the first place.

If NI’s answer remains “no plans,” specially given the current insolvency issue, I can accept that.

I just don’t think it’s unreasonable for Linux users to keep the conversation alive, especially when the ask can be shaped around minimal cost, minimal support expectations, and zero disruption to the people who’ve carried NI for years.

Vocalpoint

@Sharkuel

"If NI’s answer remains “no plans,” specially given the current insolvency issue, I can accept that"

The only reason the answer is "no plans" is because of a market that lacks the numbers required to generate cash flow and therefore unknown potential to recoup. Nothing more.

To my knowledge - NI does not do the "unsupported" thing nor would anyone around here really stand for that either since they should really be focusing on paid customers and delivering for us - not messing around in the back room wasting time on a skunkworks project to make 287 Linux guys happy.

"Even something as simple as publishing an “unsupported but tested” path — for example, “this version works with Wine + yabridge under these conditions” — with an explicit policy like “we don’t take Linux tickets and we won’t divert the main support queue” would go a long way. "

Now this is funny. I had a resource inside at Presonus a few years back and remember a conversation about the help desk "traffic" that was generated due to the their so-called "unsupported" Linux test. One guy mentioned for a while there it was the worst thing they ever did because as soon as that door was swung open - the issues came fast and furious.

If you really think "publishing" a conditional "policy" is going to stop anyone from wasting everyone's time - you need to work IN support AT a software company to see what the real world actually looks like.

My contact over there also spoke of the non-stop hassle Presonus had to endure because of the "flavour" of Linux they chose to support. It wasn't cool enough that there was a free Linux version - users then lost their minds because this permanent beta only ran on a very specific environment - one that very few wanted to use - so they *itched and complained about that for months. You cannot win.

I mean look at the issues flying through this forum day in and day out about users still trying to get support on Windows 7 and OS10 and products from 19 years ago. Users simply do not care. They approach the door, they knock and they expect support on anything - regardless of age, condition or policy.

Finally - no one is saying your ask is irresponsible but you keep adding words like "minimal " and "low risk" in front of everything. I do not believe there is anything "minimal" whatsoever about even an "exploratory" on Linux via NI. This is a very large company with LOTS of irons in the fire and millions of existing "paying" customers to keep happy. They are also in some serious financial back water right now.

If/when this turbulence passes - I would not be surprised at all if NI comes out of this significantly leaner and completely free of "things" (products) that simply do not make any sense (financially) to pursue. Therefore I do not see them having any interest in entertaining any "half measures" or exploring any areas that are not guaranteed for the overall financial health of the business going forward.

Sharkuel

@Vocalpoint

I hear you, and I don’t think we’re actually that far apart on the main principle: NI shouldn’t do anything that harms Windows/macOS customers or distracts from fixing long-standing issues, especially in a financially fragile period.

Where I disagree is on two things: (1) the idea that “no plans” is only about Linux user counts, and (2) the idea that the only viable future path is “all the way” or nothing.

On “it’s only the numbers”: numbers matter, but they’re not the whole story. NI’s blockers are also technical and operational: copy protection/activation, installer stack, kernel/driver interactions, QA matrix, support training, and the sheer complexity of product combinations (Kontakt, Komplete Kontrol, Native Access, libraries, hardware integration). Even if Linux magically doubled tomorrow, NI still wouldn’t be able to flip a switch without solving those. So yes, market size is part of it, but “nothing more” undersells the actual cost structure.

“NI doesn’t do unsupported, and nobody would stand for it”

I agree NI as a brand is not really set up for “here be dragons.” That’s why I’ve been careful to frame “unsupported” as a way to avoid harming paid customers, not as a demand that NI must do it. But I don’t buy that it’s automatically a waste of time by definition. There’s a difference between “we have a beta Linux build and please try it” (which invites tickets and expectations) and “we are not supporting Linux, but we’re not going to actively break compatibility where it costs us nothing, and here is some guidance for those who choose to self-support.” That second version can be written in a way that is very explicit and very limited.

Your Presonus story is actually a good warning because it shows what happens when companies open the door without strong expectation management and without tooling to deflect support load. I know, people complained that Presonus is on Wayland (the most modern display manager), and there are still users on X11, that is an old (i mean old) standard that has at this point major security issues like keylogging, but those are cases where the user can simply install Wayland and a Desktop environment that supports it, and they are good to go. Even OpenBSD is invested in Wayland, so that is the same as Windows XP users demanding full support on 2026. The packaging used was .deb package, that is used in Ubuntu (a Debian-based), and the most widely used. It was smart of them to make it available in such packaging format. Gentoo and Arch Linux users simply repack it to their packaging counterparts, and call it a day (I do this all the time), and even saw there that Fedora users, who use .RPM (the RedHat standard) managed to use it, and shared how they did it as well. But Presonus went beyond, and now we even have a Flatpak version of it, that basically is a format that works on any Linux platform, and honestly, it was their smartest move.

But the takeaway for me isn’t “there is no such thing as low risk,” it’s “if you do anything even adjacent to Linux, you must design it to be support-load resistant.” That means things like: no official “Linux download,” no marketing, no promises, no compatibility guarantees beyond a narrow statement, and hard triage rules on tickets (“Linux/Wine issues are out of scope; please use community resources”). Will some people still knock on the door anyway? Of course. People ask for Windows 7 support in 2026. But companies can and do enforce scope every day, otherwise they’d drown.

“there’s nothing minimal about exploratory”
“minimal” doesn’t mean “zero effort,”

You’re right to call that out. What I mean is “minimal compared to a full port + full support.” A full Linux product line is a big program. A tightly bounded compatibility posture (or a single time-boxed experiment that never becomes a public support channel) is categorically smaller. Not free, not trivial — just smaller and easier to stop if it causes churn.

“if they ever did it, it would need to be ALL the way”

I think that’s the part I most strongly disagree with. “All the way” is exactly how you end up with the nightmare you’re describing, exploding support queues, angry existing customers, and a half-finished third platform that nobody is happy with. If NI ever touches Linux, I’d actually prefer the opposite: start with one contained thing, measure it, and only expand if it clearly pays for itself and can be staffed without stealing capacity from Windows/macOS fixes.

Cava is doing it with Affinity, and it runs great on Linux even though it uses the Wine compatibility layer to run their .exe installer. Also, the efforts of the community to make it rune like it was native in Linux was noted, and considered, without them changing their pipeline, aside from ensuring that a couple of dependencies that are required by Wine are packaged in the installer.

And finally, I agree that a business case ultimately needs revenue. But the only way a paying market becomes “proven” is if there’s some product boundary where people can actually pay.

Right now, the evidence is indirect: Linux users paying for Bitwig, REAPER licenses, Resolve workflows, paid plugins that do ship Linux builds, and yes, Valve proving that Linux users buy software/hardware when friction is removed. That’s not a guarantee NI would recoup costs, but it does weaken the “Linux users won’t pay” narrative.

So I’ll put it simply:

I’m not asking NI to take a big gamble, and I’m not asking them to divert resources from existing customers. I’m saying there are ways to explore demand and reduce friction without turning NI into “Linux support,” and without making Windows/macOS users wait two weeks longer for help.

If NI decides that even that isn’t worth it right now, I can accept that. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Linux users to keep pushing for a path that’s explicitly designed not to cost existing customers anything.

"If you really think "publishing" a conditional "policy" is going to stop anyone from wasting everyone's time - you need to work IN support AT a software company to see what the real world actually looks like."
And for the record, I actually do, and we actually have more issues with non-Unix users rather than Unix-based systems (Linux and Mac).

Vocalpoint

@Sharkuel

"If NI decides that even that isn’t worth it right now, I can accept that. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Linux users to keep pushing for a path that’s explicitly designed not to cost existing customers anything"

Again - I have no issues with the asking. Yours is actually one of the only ones out here that comes at this from a measured prospective and it's great. Wish more would look at this the way you do.

"I’m not asking NI to take a big gamble, and I’m not asking them to divert resources from existing customers. I’m saying there are ways to explore demand and reduce friction without turning NI into “Linux support,” and without making Windows/macOS users wait two weeks longer for help."

But yeah - you actually are.

Unless you work AT the company and are in charge of the departments and budgets and resourcing and everything else required to "explore demand" for anything (not just Linux) - honestly - you cannot speak to what any of that actually looks like.

You have no knowledge of overall strategic plans or how the business is structured or run day-to-day or what the decision makers are actually looking at for long term growth.

This company is owned by a private equity firm that operates at a level that none of us can comprehend - a level it appears (with the current financial challenges) even they cannot manage.

But let's be brutally honest here - in business (ANY business) - if there is opportunity AND money to be made - it will be made. If that were the case here - you wouldn't even need to ask.

Sharkuel

@Vocalpoint

I take your point, I’m not inside NI, I don’t see their budgets, and I can’t claim to know what “explore demand” costs for them specifically. You’re right.

Where I still push back is the idea that any discussion of “exploring demand” automatically equals “a big gamble” or “diverting resources.” It can mean that, and if NI approaches it poorly it absolutely will. But it doesn’t have to. There’s a spectrum between “full Linux platform with support” and “do nothing,” and companies do operate in that middle ground all the time, quiet compatibility work, internal feasibility spikes, partnerships, limited-scope experiments, or simply avoiding changes that unnecessarily break Wine. Those are not risk-free, but they aren’t the same category as launching and supporting a third OS as a first-class citizen.

On the private equity/strategic planning point: agreed again. And that’s exactly why a community thread like this isn’t a negotiation, it’s a signal.

Users asking isn’t us trying to run NI’s departments; it’s us saying “this is demand we’d like you to measure when it makes sense.” NI can ignore it, log it, or revisit it later. None of that requires us to pretend we know their internal constraints.

“if there was money to be made, you wouldn’t need to ask”

I get the intuition, but in practice it’s not always true. Companies regularly leave money on the table because opportunity is unclear, because risk is hard to price, because priorities are elsewhere, or because the organization is busy fixing other fires. Markets also don’t announce themselves in a neat spreadsheet, sometimes they’re created by someone deciding to invest (Valve is a perfect example of that. Linux gaming didn’t become viable because it was already profitable, it became viable because they spent years making it viable). In audio, plenty of vendors are cautious and late precisely because they want “proven” demand first… but demand can’t be proven at scale when there’s nothing official to buy.

So I think we’re aligned on the practical takeaway that NI will do what their incentives and constraints allow, and right now their focus is likely survival and stabilization.

Note that I’m not expecting a Linux program to just pop out of this thread. I just don’t think it’s pointless, or inherently wrong asking them to gamble on it in the future, when they are in a good financial state, and to keep making the case for a very constrained, non-disruptive path if and when they ever decide to evaluate it.

But at the same time, to let NI know that there is actually an initiative supporting my post, where musicians, producers, engineer and even content creators are backing it up, telling companies that indeed there is demand for the Linux platform, and it is growing. This was the whole point.

And if we want to talk numbers, Linux desktop market share reached roughly 4-6% in 2025, a record high driven by increased adoption, growth in gaming (Steam), and users transitioning from Windows. 2-3% are ChromeOS users (that basically is Gentoo Linux) and 12 to 14% are unknown devices (that could be just heavily modded Linux devices, BSD's, HaikuOS, etc), leading to some claims that Linux Desktop adoption could be sitting between 12% to 18% (reaching MacOS numbers), and Windows devices are at around 65-60% and dropping.

Vocalpoint

@Sharkuel

"Where I still push back is the idea that any discussion of “exploring demand” automatically equals “a big gamble” or “diverting resources.”

Maybe they are simply not into a gamble? Maybe the owners pinned a memo in the lunchroom saying No Linux - ever. Or maybe they are simply not interested - period.

Again - we do not know the exact reason but it really doesn't matter - their prerogative is their prerogative. When they use the phrase "No plans" - this is definitive to me.

"In audio, plenty of vendors are cautious and late precisely because they want “proven” demand first… but demand can’t be proven at scale when there’s nothing official to buy"

This is not NI's problem to resolve.

Maybe if you guys paid $500.00 for each iteration of your favorite OS - people (AKA "business") would have paid more attention by now.

But the DIY/"Everything needs to be free" mantra has long since backfired. Everyone views this group through the same lenses now - unfortunately. I do not have an answer on how to address this but it is a huge hill to climb.

And "OS numbers and market share" aside - whether it's 4% or 50% - until you guys can somehow justify a built-in , "willing to pay" audience - I cannot see how any vendor is ever going to be to justify any gambles.

There is a primary reason why "No plans" means no plans. Money talks. Everything else walks.

"So I think we’re aligned on the practical takeaway that NI will do what their incentives and constraints allow, and right now their focus is likely survival and stabilization."

100% agreed.

Sharkuel

@Vocalpoint

Yeah, it absolutely could be as simple as “they’re not interested” or “the owners don’t want it, period.” And you’re right, that’s their prerogative.

If “no plans” is definitive to you, that’s a reasonable interpretation as a customer managing expectations. I’m not trying to redefine what NI meant on their behalf.

Where I’m still going to challenge you is the leap from “NI doesn’t want to do it” to “therefore the Linux audience is fundamentally a ‘free’ audience and vendors shouldn’t even consider anything unless Linux users pay for their OS.”

Linux being free is not the same thing as Linux users refusing to pay for software. Windows isn’t paid per “iteration” in the way you’re describing either for a lot of people, most users get it bundled with hardware, discounted through OEMs, workplace licensing, or upgrade paths. Most Windows users don't even know at this point where, or when, they attained a valid license to begin with.

The OS cost is not the proof of willingness to pay. The proof is whether people buy tools, plugins, instruments, controllers, subscriptions, and content. And in creative industries, plenty of Linux users do exactly that when given the option.

Also, the “DIY/everything must be free” crowd exists on every platform. You see it with cracked plugins on Windows and macOS too, at a scale that completely dwarfs Linux. And if you want to go through that metric alone, thousands of pirated Windows copies, stolen keys, keygens, kms activators, powershell scripts, etc, would actually discourage software vendors to ship their tools to Windows, since these people didn't pay for their OS either, and down the road even got a free upgrade from Microsoft itself.

And in MacOS, there are the Hackintoshes. Apple may have managed to reduce their numbers with the usage of M1 chips, but people already figured a workaround by using Proxmox to emulate the hardware.

The difference is that on Windows/macOS there’s still a huge paying market despite piracy, because distribution and support assumptions are stable, and the customer base is massive, specially on Windows, since buying a computer = getting Windows. So I don’t think it’s accurate to frame Linux as uniquely “freeloading”, that's just a vocal minority on Linux itself that was the loudest 15-20 years ago that believed Linux was more about themselves rather than having the best performance out of your hardware, and nowadays, that crowd is simply meme'd upon within the Linux community.

Actually, on a sidenote, there is a youtuber that is also a musician and sound producer that goes by the name of Morgonaut Hack!ntosh, who has an impressive build, where she set up Proxmox to boot 3 containers running MacOS, Windows and Linux, all at the same time, one on each screen, with drag and drop capabilities between the 3 systems. But I digress.

“this is not NI’s problem to resolve”
Agreed. NI doesn’t owe anyone Linux support. But, again, that doesn’t mean users are wrong to ask, or that asking needs to be framed as “make NI solve Linux.” The ask can simply be “If you ever look at this, here are the least disruptive ways to do it.” And NI can still say no, in which they did, for now.

But at the end of it, money talks completely. That’s the entire argument for why Linux users keep speaking up, demand signals are part of how money becomes visible. It’s not a guarantee, and it may never move NI, but it’s how every “unproven” segment becomes proven in the first place.

Interest gets expressed, then someone tests it, then revenue either materializes or it doesn’t.

So I’m with you on the practical conclusion that NI is going to prioritize survival and stabilization, and “no plans” likely means “don’t hold your breath.”

I just don’t think the right takeaway is “Linux users are viewed as free so it’s basically hopeless.” The more accurate takeaway is until the support/QA cost drops or the addressable market becomes easier to reach, most vendors won’t touch it, and NI, given their current state, has even less reason to.

Vocalpoint

@Sharkuel

"Linux being free is not the same thing as Linux users refusing to pay for software"

I did not say that it was.

But "free" is all you can relate to right now. Anything that is "not free" suddenly becomes harder to justify.

Case in point - I posed this hypothetical to another user some time ago - how he would feel if NI DID tackle a commercial version of Kontakt for Linux and then told him it was $799.00 USD? per copy.

Would he buy it? Instantly got crickets on that one in that thread.

Then ask yourself this - IF this far fetched example ever did come to pass and that was the price (due to the incredibly large development tabl AND the incredibly tiny market available) and the Linux crowd suddenly goes "$799.00? NO way I am paying that" - and NI is left holding the bag - now what?

Takeaway - it seems that as long as prices are NEVER discussed - this whole Linux idea is just awesome. But then a bill comes due and suddenly no takers - because they are not "used" to paying that much (or anything at all) for their software.

This single (albeit bizarre) example should make it obvious why NO company could ever justify doing this.

"The more accurate takeaway is until the support/QA cost drops or the addressable market becomes easier to reach, most vendors won’t touch it, and NI, given their current state, has even less reason to."

Sums it up perfectly.

Quick links

Unanswered questions