The issue is not the quality of Avalonia/Uno. They are wonderful. The issue is not availability of third-party toolkits -- they are there. The core issue is being psychologically assured that the first party is interested in supporting my platform with its programming languages and libraries. If MS can support Mac, ios, and Android -- what exactly prevented it from supporting Linux ?? This conspicuous lack of support in the presence of support for other non-MS platforms is the most bothersome bit. And supporting Linux can't be too expensive either. If Avalonia and Uno being open source with no backing of a huge corporation can do it in their stride -- then Microsoft sure as hell can do it. Again , this time economically --- why exactly is MS supporting Mac, ios, and Android -- not Linux ???. I hope you see my point. The absence of MS support is not bothersome technologically. It is problematic attitude wise. If they are fine with not doing GUI on linux (while doing it on all the other platforms) --- what other features/enhancements they will be willing to hold back from Linux ??
reply
neonsunset|2 years ago
The reason why Avalonia and Uno have support for Linux but not MAUI is purely technical one - Avalonia and Uno draw their controls by themselves, like with Skia(sharp). MAUI tries to be a successor to Xamarin and uses native controls drawn by the host instead. Naturally, this has always been a problem on Linux and supporting it is non trivial (what do you choose? Attempt to make it work with Qt, GTK, something else entirely? what about X.Org vs Wayland?). Realistically, supporting mobile platforms first alongside Windows and macOS is much more important and is a far better investment of effort (how many users are there with desktops/laptops on Linux vs macOS/Windows) and there are only so many people working on this. It is perfectly fine for GUI frameworks to take different approaches and pursue different goals, where Linux systems are much better served by Avalonia.