Linux version?!

[Guest]

Now THAT would be cool!

[fhyio]

+1

[Tarekith]

No, Charlie Brown would not approve.

[dinaiz]

What about a 64bit linux version !?

[KeithCu]

Open letter to Ableton;

I was very annoyed about Ableton / Linux support, so I decided to come here and complain and I found a thread already!

If an applications supports Windows and Mac, supporting Linux is not much work. Somehow, there are very many products that work on all 3 platforms. If you only supported Windows, you would be in much worse shape. I'll bet a sandwich Ableton doesn't have even have one person working on Linux. 3-5 could have a solid native port in a few months. If you are too busy to do a native port, you could work on WINE support. That is what Google has done.

The Linux audio stack is mature now. It is more of a realization that your customers want Linux support. Note, the WINE support for Ableton Live is getting solid today, but it does have problems. On the latest Ubuntu, it installs and runs, which is a huge step forward, but it has some perf glitches (some things are very slow), and the audio doesn't work. With Ableton supporting Linux directly, or via Wine, ideally both, these problems could easily and quickly get fixed.

A free / GPL Ableton would be very nice, but a paid-for version of Ableton on Linux enables users to run a free OS, which is even better. Not supporting Linux is damaging to the freedom of Ableton's customers. If everyone "hates" Microsoft, why isn't their more support for the alternate? Microsoft continues to win because of the lack of vision or laziness of others.

I don't recommend rioting in the streets, but I do encourage customers to remind every vendor loudly that the freedom to choose your own OS is very important, and companies should respect their customers' OS preferences.

You might think it isn't worth it to build a Linux version today, but how can you know the demand of a product you don't have? Linux marketshare is growing every year and studies show that worldwide usage is comparable to the Macintosh today. It is true that not much music-making is done on Linux today, but that is partially your fault!. Are you waiting for Linux to be dominant in music-making before you enter the business? Any businessman will tell you that is backwards.

People may not use a product if it doesn't run on all platforms. PDF, Flash and Firefox, Wikipedia, etc. are popular because they work on all platforms. Not having a Linux version puts the entire company at risk.

I know you are busy, but I know you can afford it. It is not a matter of development being at capacity, it is a matter of prioritizing. When you say you don't have the resources, you are saying it isn't important enough. You actually could make a major shift in priorities if you wanted to. I'm sure that requirements show up mid-way through every development cycle that NEED to be incorporated, and it gets done.

It is important that you have forward-thinking people. You either embrace the future or your competitors do it for you. I don't care who builds it, but Linux is in need of music-making software today. Many people run proprietary software on Linux. Ableton said that they aren't going to support Linux because they can't be "all things to all people". That is equating one feature with all possible features.

I have found that some of Ableton's employees are long-time users of Debian Linux. It is sad that Linux has so many users who are not supporters. Supporting Linux can mean many things. I just ask you to make a version of Ableton that runs on at least Debian. If you feel incredibly busy, I can recommend moving away from C++ towards 99% Python. That will help help speed the Linux port and every other feature.

Regards,

-Keith
http://keithcu.com/SoftwareWars/.

P.S. Here is a quote:

Sometimes the real hurdle to renewal is not a lack of options, but a lack of flexibility in resource allocation. All too often, legacy projects get richly funded year after year while new initiatives go begging. This, more than anything, is why companies regularly forfeit the future -- they over invest in “what is” at the expense of “what could be.”

New projects are deemed “untested”, “risky”, or a “diversion of resources.” Thus while senior execs may happily fund a billion-dollar acquisition, someone a few levels down who attempts to “borrow” a half-dozen talented individuals for a new project, or carve a few thousand dollars out of a legacy budget, is likely to find the task on par with a dental extraction.

The resource allocation model is typically biased against new ideas, since it demands a level of certainty about volumes, costs, timelines, and profits that simply can't be satisfied when an ideal is truly novel. While it's easy to predict the returns on a project that is a linear extension of an existing business, the payback on an unconventional idea will be harder to calculate.

Managers running established businesses seldom have to defend the strategic risk they take when they pour good money into a slowly decaying business model, or overfund an activity that is already producing diminishing returns.

How do you accelerate the redeployment of resources from legacy programs to future-focused initiatives?

—Gary Hamel, The Future of Management

[dinaiz]

I think the whole point is just there's no profit to be made on linux. That's a kind of chicken and egg problem : there's no software available on linux so everybody uses windows/mac os . Everybody uses windows/mac OS so no one wants to develop software on linux

Oh and I see your point about free software/GPL . I'm also a supporter of that. But how to you imagine a software which is customer oriented (as opposed to business oriented) to make money if it's GPL ? I mean : employees have to be paid somehow .... Most companies who do open source make money through support to other companies (like Canonical with ubuntu)

[KeithCu]

Hi;

Simultaneously to you, I updated the text above and it responds to the points you make.

Regards,

-Keith

[dinaiz]

Thanks, your point of view is interesting. I played the devil advocate because I also think Linux deserves better audio software. However you don't really address the point of making money with open source software when your software isn't addressed to businesses

[KeithCu]

It is good to be a devil's advocate, but being against Linux isn't a useful position.

There are many ways to make money for writing free software, but we are talking here about Ableton supporting customers who want to run Linux. That is a totally different issue. Look at Flash: it is proprietary but it works on Linux.

The free software community would port Ableton to Linux if Ableton released the code, but Ableton can do it as well. Surely, they have lesser features they could push to Ableton 10 while they do the Linux port.

Regards,

-Keith

[KeithCu]

deleteddd

[gosinisha]

come on man, many of us want linux live, but it has about 58 distros. then each of those want compatibility....

[dinaiz]

I think ubuntu/debian is by far the most popular one among general public

[seattletruth]

Step one - Dual boot into Windows

Step 2 - Use Live

problem solved!

[KeithCu]

I haven't had a Windows partition in years. Many Linux people quit dual-booting after a while.

BTW, I have heard that Ableton has a lot of Python, which is trivial to port to Linux. It mostly involves the cp command.

[fedexnman]

+1 linux port and add to that a keyfile copy protection ( like reaper and fabfilter use )