It isn’t a matter of “practicality” that divides that audience. Having a third option, particularly an open source (Linux) option, it utterly and totally impractical. Rather, it’s a matter that some folks want it regardless of practicality. They present a normative argument based entirely on their wishes, and disregard what it would cost developers. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
I think it has been determined, and correctly so, that there is NO enhanced revenue stream to be gained in offering a Linux (or open source alternative) version of ANY major DAW. Therefore, ones man’s wish is a company’s operating loss, and breach of fiduciary obligation to return value to stakeholders rather than lose value.
This discussion has been done to death, for years … nay, for decades now … and still it creeps up again-and-again in the forums … like the night of the living zombie daws. And all this time, the folks that yearn and cry out for it, haven’t dipped into their personal treasure, and risked their own capital, to made it happen. If it’s such a great idea, and they have such a fantastic market position to gain, why don’t they? Because it’s a losing proposition.