That’s all fine, but it doesn’t change what I said. You still need to do thorough development and testing on each an every one of these to be sure there are no other issues, such as with UI components, etc. Not doing so is irresponsible. So for the last time for me - NO to Linux, I don’t think it’s worth the investment. Neither does Steinberg, or we would have seen it by now.
They have Cubasis (linux and ios), I think that will count as a starting.
I’ve used Linux for years on servers, and I would be perfectly happy moving to Linux on the desktop if Cubase and all the other applications I use were there too (such as Dorico), and all the VST plugins I use were also there, and if everything was just as stable as or more stable than on Windows, and the vendors provided equal support to Windows.
However, I don’t think it is realistic that we will get to that point anytime soon. I remember when QuickBooks came out with a Linux version of the server component so that you could use a Linux server with the accounting software. It was released as a binary executable. We moved to that quickly, and then started immediately getting problems where things would get stuck and nobody could log in, and the official solution was to reboot the server. So that server had to be rebooted a couple times a week, and accounting would constantly be getting upset at the Sysadmins. We complained about the issue and the Quickbooks support was like “running on Windows Server it doesn’t have those problems, but you chose to run Linux, so sorry but you have to put up with these issues, and we won’t help you with this.” Then even more recently CentOS 7 was discontinued for updates and the Linux server component only ran on that (we tried on RHEL 8.x and it crashed). Our choices were then to keep it on an unsecure old distro that would no longer get updates, or move it to Windows server. So we moved that back to Windows server finally.
The point of that long anecdote is, is even though you might get to the point where something can run on Linux, it is a very different thing than it being “well supported” on Linux, and can easily turn into the vendor saying “yeah it technically works on Linux but you should really run Windows or MacOS instead because even though we say it is supported we won’t really be able to help you with any problems”. And I would need for everything (software, all plugins, etc.) to be at the “well supported” stage (not just a “probably should work” stage) before I would consider moving.
I would certainly NOT move to Linux if only Steinberg software was ported and none of my plugins were. I need my plugins to work reliably, and I need to stay on supported platforms for them. So there’s a chicken-and-egg problem here.
Technically, Linux is the kernel, not the OS by the way.
Some people are talking about distributions such as RH, openSUSE, CentOS, Ubuntu and so on…
That was another thing I was going to mention. but wasn’t worth mentioning when others don’t even understand how Linux works in the first place.
I think this comment really gets to the core of the situation. I firmly believe that the vast majority of Cubase users (and don’t forget we also need to think about Nuendo, WaveLab, Dorico, HALion, etc. users) have never even considered a Linux version as an option because they don’t even know what it is. Most folks who do know what it is have probably never even considered trying it because they have no reason to do so. Until it is a proven base layer upon which to add all of our other favorite add-ons, I just don’t see it happening. That doesn’t mean that I have any harsh feelings against anyone who wants a Linux version. I just still think it’s a dream world and not a platform for the mass majority of users. Things can always change, but I just don’t see Linux being a major concern for Steinberg at this point in time. If they are working on things behind the scenes for future compatibility, that would surely be cool. Right now, though … I would prefer they spend their resources on current systems.
It doesn’t help when you start threads by saying:
They are not using “Linux” as their daily drivers, they are using a particular distro that they have chosen that suits their userland requirements. In all transparency, just judging by the way you’ve articulated the technical points you’ve made, I thought you were one of those people. That isn’t meant to be critical, but rather, transparent.
It also doesn’t help (in my mind) for you to point to CachyOS as the model solution when they don’t even have an ARM64 port. As such, these posts - again, in my opinion - tend to devolve into forked conversations that do more to hurt the argument than help it.
As @Scab_Pickens said, if you are withholding comments speaking to the very fact that Linux isn’t even an operating system (which it’s not) because you don’t think people in this forum have the presence of mind to differentiate between a kernel and an OS, then why even create the thread? Rhetorical, of course.
Which reminds us what happens when one makes uninformed assumptions. 
Chewy
Well in common parlance Linux is an operating system/s. Wikipedia says:
Linux (/ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks)[15] is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel,[16] an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991, by Linus Torvalds.[17][18][19] Linux is typically packaged as a Linux distribution (distro), which includes the kernel and supporting system software and libraries—most of which are provided by third parties—to create a complete operating system, designed as a clone of Unix and released under the copyleft GPL license.[20]
Sure Linux is the kernel, but people commonly refer to distros as Linux.
Same as when people use “VST” to mean plugin. Or “Google” when they use any search engine. It’s a generic term, too.
Within the context of a user claiming that “others don’t even understand how Linux works in the first place,” and when discussing how an entire suite of products should be ported, in some cases requiring standardization presumptions on audio components and distro dependancies only relevant to a specific (or potential group of) distributions, the distinction is absolutely relevant.
A “Cubase on Linux” solution would manifest itself as a “Cubase on Distributions X and Y.” Not “Linux.” The reference to a distro that doesn’t even support ARM is a perfect example of this, and one where the use of “common parlance” fails. Saying “MacOS is based on Linux” may be acceptable to some for what people commonly refer to as “Linux and MacOS,” but from a technical development perspective within the context of identifying how “easy it should be to port” it has absolutely zero value or application to the real world. None.
The details matter, specifically in this case, and even more specifically as it regards to porting an entire suite of products to a yet-to- be determined distro.
I mean, here we are talking about “what words mean,” but nowhere in any of these threads over the years have I ever seen 10 people “+1” a distro selection.
Saying you’re going to “Xerox a copy” in the office doesn’t matter. Calling CDW and telling them “we need to convert all of our offices to a Xerox solution” absolutely does.
I can see the SB PM now - “hey guys, anything good out of that new Linux thread?” “Yeah, they’re 63 posts in and just now defining what ‘Linux’ is.”
Reading comments stating that “Steinberg themselves have to test all the distros of Linux and make sure the GUI and other things are stable” are wild claims that are not backed only by there own opinion. So which means Bitwig tested all the Linux Distros that are over 100 today since I know someone who uses Arch Linux to uses Bitwig along with a good friend of mine who uses Linux Mint which is based on Ubuntu. and both work phenomenally for them.
Forgive me if I quote myself, from 2014:
I will shortly have a perfectly usable ex-Windows 10 machine that I would happily devote to Cubase on Linux, were it to become an option, but instead it’s going to have Reaper and possibly Bitwig on it. That’s not to say I will stop using Steinberg products – far from it – but, again, it would be nice to have a Linux option. I’d even settle for a Cubase LE on Linux, explicity with zero support offering (by the way, does anyone really depend on the current support?).
by the way, does anyone really depend on the current support?
Well, only if there is an issue that needs fixing. Currently, it seems though, that support has more urgent problems than to address mine. Feel a bit lost at the moment…
Yes sir, you’re correct. But I’m compelled to at least point out that the OP’s claim that SB should “go native on Linux” because it will be a “game-changer for pro audio” certainly loses some of its impact when the same user posts within the Cubase forum that “others don’t even understand how Linux works in the first place.”
It just seems both counter-intuitive and counter-productive. But I’m just a singer in a rock and roll band. How can I understand riots by the people, for the people, who are only destroying themselves?
I think we got your point that you simply don’t want/need Linux support. That doesn’t mean however that others might benefit from that.
So now we’re at the point that I’m not even allowed to reply to other users who replied to me? Just so I’m clear, it’s fine for you to claim that other people’s posts are “nonsense” and voice your opinion how you please, but it’s not OK for others?
Point well taken.
That’s not my point. No offense meant. But IMHO discussing whether Linux is an OS, or not, is definitely not the point of this topic, is it?
Thanks for that. In my opinion, conversations like these fork into myriad threads, and deviation from the subtext should be expected, if not desired.
I think that in a public forum we should all respect the fact that everyone else has opinions, some even quite strong, and that this too should be wanted, and expected. An artifact of these conversations may be important to me, but not important to you. I don’t believe that either one of us should tell anyone else what they can and can’t focus on, even if we think it’s OT. We can discuss, counter, ignore, etc - but not censure.
I think my point was pursant to the thread. We can certainly disagree, but trying to tell other people what they can and can’t comment on is counter to the purpose of a public forum - in my opinion.
That said, I respect your opinion, so thank you.
EDIT: This is also why I suggested the topic be moved to The Lounge. This isn’t about “Cubase.”
Well of course, full ack. As said, I never meant this personal or censoring in any way. That is in my experience the general problem of just text as this is not like a regular face to face discussion. Text can be read with different eyes, either being offensive or whatever - depending on the mood you are currently in. I just wanted to stay put on the initial post itself.
And yes, I agree, this is bigger than just Cubase itself and would definitely fit into The Lounge.