What does producing music on Linux look like today?
(<)(>)1/3 Bitwig Studio and a bunch of native Linux plugins running on Arch Linux GNOME (by Amadeus Paulussen).2/3 Ardour with a bunch of native (mostly FOSS) Linux plugins running on NixOS SwayFX (by Vivien).3/3 Ardour with a bunch of native FOSS Linux plugins running on LibraZiK MATE (by Nicolas Faure).
The availability of both proprietary (Bitwig Studio, Mixbus, Reaper, Studio One, Waveform, etc.) and Open Source (Ardour, Qtractor, Zrythm, etc.) digital audio workstations (DAW) and the flexible audio subsystem of modern Linux distributions, PipeWire, make Linux a serious alternative to macOS and Windows when it comes to computer-aided music production.
Even independently of music production, Linux has come a long way and is now not only on a par with macOS and Windows in many areas, but even superior in some.
Of course, this does not mean that the experience of producing music with Linux is already on a par with the competition from Redmond and Cupertino in all respects. Especially when it comes to the range of available plugins, Linux still lags. And this even though it would be relatively easy for most plugin vendors to compile and publish their plugins as native Linux versions, thanks to the widely adopted use of Open Source cross-platform frameworks such as JUCE for plugin development.
With the help of libraries such as yabridge, Windows plugins can be used under Linux. However, this is sometimes associated with trial and error, involves performance losses and does not work with all Windows plugins.
And, yes, not all major digital audio workstations are available on Linux. For example, there is no Cubase, no Logic (obviously), no Pro Tools, no Live (even though Ableton uses a Linux version of Live with their Push hardware), and no FL Studio for Linux.
Another hurdle for Linux-based music production is the lack of drivers and software for audio interfaces in many cases. Fortunately, there are at least some vendors, such as RME, who design their audio interfaces to be USB Class Compliant, which means that they can generally be used with Linux without any drivers and/or software. So, in addition to a lack of software (plugins and DAWs), better support from manufacturers of audio interfaces would also be desirable.
The bottom line is that Linux is absolutely ready for music production. However, depending on which DAW or which plugins users want/need, they may have to make concessions or hope for an improvement of the market situation, which is what we're aiming for with our initiative.
The current status of the Linux user base could be compared with that of macOS a few years ago. The macOS user base was also relatively small at the time, but it grew rapidly over time and with it the range of software available for macOS. We expect a similar development for Linux.
So, the decision for a vendor to support Linux is currently still more of an ideological nature. But since the effort on their side is usually oversee-able, and the move to support Linux also has a sympathetic effect on their brand, we think it is already worth going that route today.
How large is the target audience for Linux users who are willing to pay for plugin licenses?
A growing number of professional Linux users are willing to pay for software, as seen in other industries such as video production, with vendors like Blackmagic Design and paid products such as DaVinci Resolve.
As of August 2025, Linux enjoys a share of the global desktop computer market of over 6%, with macOS above 15% and Windows still the dominant player at over 75%.
Should plugins for Linux be "Free and Open Source Software"?
Plugins offered for Linux can be FOSS as well as proprietary and/or commercial.
Since Linux itself is so-called Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), one could assume that plugins distributed for Linux should also conform to this model. However, this is not the case.
What other vendors offer their plugins for Linux?
There is a growing number of vendors who offer their products for Linux.
How can I copy-protect my plugins on Linux? What about services like iLok?
On Linux, similar to macOS or Windows, a variety of methods can be employed for integrating a copy protection mechanism into a plugin. These include the use of generated serial numbers, keyfiles, watermarks, or server-based username/password pairs and challenge/response systems for login/authentication purposes.
Systems like iLok are not currently available for Linux, while it would theoretically be possible for vendors like PACE to provide a system like iLok for Linux systems.
What do Linux users expect from audio plugin vendors?
Linux users in general enjoy their freedom and usually do not want to be controlled or patronized by vendors.
Things like complicated or even invasive copy protection mechanisms, installers that do not transparently show the user what is being installed where, or even plugin/download managers would most likely not be well received by the typical Linux user.
Since many Linux users have advanced computer skills, they usually appreciate it when vendors provide information about the build system used (e.g., distribution, libc/glibc version, etc.).
Linux users generally appreciate modest, straightforward processes and are also happy to download plugins by hand and copy the binaries to their respective locations, etc.
What are the system requirements for a Linux development computer?
As Linux generally has low hardware requirements and is often installed and operated succesfully on older computers, the requirements for developing and compiling audio plugins for Linux are actually very low.
What operating system should I use for development?
Many Linux audio plugin developers use a stable, non-cutting-edge distribution such as Debian as their build system. This is to remain backward compatible with older versions of libc/glibc.
On cutting-edge distributions, it makes sense to use a container-based build system to compile the plugin binaries against a non-cutting-edge libc/glibc version.
What formats should I distribute my plugins in?
On Linux, plugins are usually offered as VST3 and LV2, but also increasingly in CLAP format.
With which DAWs and/or operating systems should I test my plugins?
As with other platforms, testing audio plugins with different DAWs is also worthwhile on Linux.
The numerous Linux distributions and desktop environments or window managers can be an additional factor. However, many vendors test their plugins on Linux to a limited extent, e.g. only with Debian and Ardour.
However, an ideal scenario would be to test at least two distributions, e.g. an Arch based distribution with KDE as the desktop environment and Debian with GNOME as the desktop environment.
Do I need to worry about PipeWire (vs JACK or PulseAudio) or Wayland (vs X11)?
The short answer is no.
The long answer for PipeWire – Linux's modern, flexible audio processing engine – is that it was developed from the ground up to replace both Pulse Audio and JACK in everyday use and does so seamlessly (and with no further ado) via pipewire-jack and pipewire-pulse. While most distributions have already switched to PipeWire as their default, only a few DAWs, such as Bitwig Studio, currently support PipeWire directly. Ultimately, however, this plays a minor role in everyday use, thanks to PipeWire's backwards compatibility.
The long answer for Wayland is a bit more complex. As Linux's modern display server protocol, Wayland was developed as a direct replacement for X11. Thanks to Xwayland, a compatibility layer for X11 integrated into Wayland, X11 applications and plugins work without issues in most cases on Wayland. Currently, none of the popular plugin frameworks support Wayland directly. However, this is actively being worked on (at least for some of the frameworks, such as JUCE and DPF) and there's workarounds for certain scenarios as well. For the time being, this means that if a DAW does not offer X11 support, as is the case with, for example, PreSonus' Studio One, it can't be run on X11. However, such a DAW can still load X11 plugins via Xwayland perfectly fine on Wayland. And all of this without the user even noticing it.
Does Linux support high-resolution graphical user interfaces?
Yes, modern Linux desktop environments and window managers support high-resolution displays.
Just like macOS and Windows users, Linux users nowadays expect plugins to have graphical user interfaces that are sharp on high-resolution displays and that can be resized.
How well does the framework I use work with Linux?
Are there any known factors that could prevent an existing plugin from successfully being ported to and distributed on Linux?
In most cases, it is possible to make a plugin Linux-compatible. However, there are certain circumstances in which this is not (or at least not easily) possible.
1. If a plugin is dynamically linked and depends on external, system-wide, non-ABI libraries other than libc or libX11, it may not work. Like on other platforms, a plugin must not depend on external 3rd party shared libraries.
2. If a plugin uses APIs that are not available on Linux (like e.g. iLok), they will need to be replaced before porting.
3. Using web views in a plugin could prevent it from running at all or result in it only being compatible with a very narrow subset of system configurations.
Are there any associated costs, such as fees for licenses, when developing Linux plugins?
VST3 can be used for free with GPL v3 plugins. A proprietary licence can be purchased for non-GPL v3 plugins.
Can I get help from experienced developers if I run into problems?
In the long run, we would like to mediate between experienced Linux audio developers and such that are new to the topic, but unfortunately we are not there yet and currently can't offer any support in this regard.
After all, can't Linux users just use WINE/yabridge to run Windows plugins?
With the help of libraries such as yabridge, Windows plugins can be used under Linux. However, this is sometimes associated with trial and error, involves performance losses and does not work with all Windows plugins.
There's a new generation of Linux audio users who are not willing to accept a halfway functioning solution and only use native Linux software.
