sure its commercially supported by the grand family, cause they know of naive idealistic running for everything promising something "open" and "free". call it simple sidechain-investment. and back then where the hysteria started no one could see how it would go.
but now you can have that look on it. and what i do see (whtaever you do) is that linux lost part of its alternate identity due to since x-free it takes much of the main runners, creeping behind them than in front of it. linux generally tried to become more and more "consumer friendly" (or imperial?) and the distributors put all inside that could be needed, caring a very less about things like coherence and staibility of all entities together. a working machine. exactly there their ideal crashed, now that it was more fun to use win 2000 or even xp. bad bad microsoft up and down and out.
osx maybe fetched the balance within professional, straight conceptionalism and the creative potential (which i´d never deny) of open source.
Why not Linux?
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
radib wrote:sure its commercially supported by the grand family, cause they know of naive idealistic running for everything promising something "open" and "free". call it simple sidechain-investment. and back then where the hysteria started no one could see how it would go.
but now you can have that look on it. and what i do see (whtaever you do) is that linux lost part of its alternate identity due to since x-free it takes much of the main runners, creeping behind them than in front of it. linux generally tried to become more and more "consumer friendly" (or imperial?) and the distributors put all inside that could be needed, caring a very less about things like coherence and staibility of all entities together. a working machine. exactly there their ideal crashed, now that it was more fun to use win 2000 or even xp. bad bad microsoft up and down and out.
I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. What are all the entities you are talking about that don't work together? If you just use GNOME or just use KDE, I'd say it's very much on par with Windows... and certainly seeing more progress.
Eh, the whole OS X is based on an open source foundation is complete bollocks. Well, it's not, in the sense that the core levels of OS X are sometimes released in source form, but it is in the sense that I've never heard of ANYONE from outside of Apple committing so much as one patch to it. AFAIK getting it to compile is extremely painful as well... I'm not sure I've ever actually heard of someone compiling and using a new base system with a release of OS X. I don't even know if it's possible as Apple's binary compatibility is a bit wobbly...osx maybe fetched the balance within professional, straight conceptionalism and the creative potential (which i´d never deny) of open source.
Really I think it comes down to Apple not wanting to be complete arseholes to the FreeBSD people who wrote two thirds of Darwin... and marketing, of course. But really, for all intents and purposes, Darwin being available as open source is only useful to people who want to study the bowels of OS X.
Other Apple open source projects like WebKit are of course extremely valuable contributions to the community... but Darwin is a bit of a, it might as well not be...
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
..
OSX and Apple have nothing to do with Linux and open applications. Apple is totally closed. iPhone, iTunes etc.
I don 't like that.
I don 't like that.
@noisetonepause
What do you think it would take to make Linux a good consistent platform for audio (In fact a good consistent platform for the desktop too really)?
Personally I think it needs someone like Apple to unify matters but obviously not handling it in the way they have. I agree their commitment to OSS, as demonstrated by the Darwin project is less that exemplary.
What do you think it would take to make Linux a good consistent platform for audio (In fact a good consistent platform for the desktop too really)?
Personally I think it needs someone like Apple to unify matters but obviously not handling it in the way they have. I agree their commitment to OSS, as demonstrated by the Darwin project is less that exemplary.
..
more users should start using it. we can change the future when we get off our lazy asses!
we need innovators. people who'd like to take some risk. creative people.
we need innovators. people who'd like to take some risk. creative people.
Re: ..
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.htmlraapie wrote:OSX and Apple have nothing to do with Linux and open applications. Apple is totally closed.
Re: ..
Go on then. Use Live on linux. On a laptop, with controllers, external audio cards etcraapie wrote:more users should start using it. we can change the future when we get off our lazy asses!
we need innovators. people who'd like to take some risk. creative people.
That is not the answer. I think a unifying force is needed. Not individual people power (for this task).
oh boy, just on the surface. working windows is much clearer and less buggy than kde or even gnome, which is not just to those grafical systems but the whole dependecies of particular apps regarding libraries. especially if it comes to more complex or specific like professional audio or video linux is just a bad annoying joke. if you write, email and program a bit in c, or if you administrate a network, well, go with it. and for every program in linux you´d find better in windows, but not the other way around.noisetonepause wrote: I'm not really sure I understand what you're trying to say here. What are all the entities you are talking about that don't work together? If you just use GNOME or just use KDE, I'd say it's very much on par with Windows... and certainly seeing more progress.
Eh, the whole OS X is based on an open source foundation is complete bollocks.
my interests don´t lie so much in the computer biz stuff, so if osx had been based on open source (as robin said in this thread) that could have been a good vision for linus to give the whole thing more quality (which is there on the basical system/administration/programming level, but not regarding modern usage (though first x/gnome and now ubuntu did a lot here) and epecially multimedia).
-
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
"after all it wouldn´t have been possible without the impossible."
Re: ..
But using what ? I would use Live on Linux but who is gona pay for it, sure you, noise, myself couple of others wouldn't mind to pay for Linux upgrade but that wont be enough to cover a week of work.raapie wrote:more users should start using it. we can change the future when we get off our lazy asses!
we need innovators. people who'd like to take some risk. creative people.
I am sure the idea must be appealing to some people at Ableton, to be first professional audio company to run on Linux, I can imagine there could be a lot of users ready to switch but Ableton needs money for that. Since Apple and Yamaha/Cubase have their own game, I guess only Avid could support Ableton in this case, they have the capacity and surely considered Linux options already, since anyway theirs are the close hard/software integrated systems in both AV and audio sectors. Supporting Ableton on Linux could be inexpensive way of testing the waters, see if that penguin will swim, fly or sink. I cannot imagine that Avid never considered Linux options till now.
Then the hardware is theirs anyway, though I am not M audios biggest fan, they have some working products ,OK to get by if there were no others. Yet, if that penguin would really fly, other manufacturers would probably provide drivers really fast.
ableton live on linux does not make any sense.
i really like the idea of open source and also linux. and i really like live. but live on linux is a no-no. why? because - it ain't open source! to me- linux is built as an open source os, running open source apps.
but that doesn't mean there will be no good audio apps for linux. i think it could be a future os for audio, but then with open source audio apps, like there are good open source apps for other stuff (development, web browsing).
of course the audio/midi driver situation has to be sorted out if there ever is gonna be regular people using linux for audio.
edit:
"regular" as in non-linux-heads, non-developers
although i think linux has the most potential as a 'diy music maker'-os, if driver issues were sorted out. that is, reaktor-heads, building their own ensembles or instruments
perahps. i dunno
i really like the idea of open source and also linux. and i really like live. but live on linux is a no-no. why? because - it ain't open source! to me- linux is built as an open source os, running open source apps.
but that doesn't mean there will be no good audio apps for linux. i think it could be a future os for audio, but then with open source audio apps, like there are good open source apps for other stuff (development, web browsing).
of course the audio/midi driver situation has to be sorted out if there ever is gonna be regular people using linux for audio.
edit:
"regular" as in non-linux-heads, non-developers
although i think linux has the most potential as a 'diy music maker'-os, if driver issues were sorted out. that is, reaktor-heads, building their own ensembles or instruments
perahps. i dunno
fyi, when you plug your third party devices into a mac, theynoisetonepause wrote: Eh, the whole OS X is based on an open source foundation is complete bollocks. Well, it's not, in the sense that the core levels of OS X are sometimes released in source form, but it is in the sense that I've never heard of ANYONE from outside of Apple committing so much as one patch to it. AFAIK getting it to compile is extremely painful as well... I'm not sure I've ever actually heard of someone compiling and using a new base system with a release of OS X. I don't even know if it's possible as Apple's binary compatibility is a bit wobbly...
just work.
which means you don't have to recompile your kernel for them to
function...
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
go to it!
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/overview.html
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
What are you talking about? They work if you have drivers installed. If you plug devices into a Linux machine with the right drivers, they just work. If you plug devices into a BSD box with drivers they just work... The only times I've had to recompile a Linux kernel to make something work is when I decided to compile it myself and forgot to put something in it..gomi wrote:fyi, when you plug your third party devices into a mac, theynoisetonepause wrote: Eh, the whole OS X is based on an open source foundation is complete bollocks. Well, it's not, in the sense that the core levels of OS X are sometimes released in source form, but it is in the sense that I've never heard of ANYONE from outside of Apple committing so much as one patch to it. AFAIK getting it to compile is extremely painful as well... I'm not sure I've ever actually heard of someone compiling and using a new base system with a release of OS X. I don't even know if it's possible as Apple's binary compatibility is a bit wobbly...
just work.
which means you don't have to recompile your kernel for them to
function...
Anyways, where did I say anything about recompiling your OS X kernel to do something specific? What I said was, AFAIK nobody does recompile it, because it's damn hard to get the environment right to build Darwin in the first place, and damn near impossible to put a working binary release of OS X on top of your re-compiled base system, especially if you make any changes... That's why I say the whole "The basis of OS X is open source!" thing is bollocks. There's no easy way to modify a part of Darwin and install it into a working OS X system, nor is there a way to add features or fix bugs and send the patches to Apple for inclusion in an upcoming release (at least, I've never heard that it's happened).. so you can't do any of the things you'd expect to be able to do with an open source system. That's why I say it's mostly marketing.
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Chiming in late here, but as to the basis of OS X being open source:
I think they mean, it's based on open source projects, which it certainly is to some degree: it uses open source projects, hacked to Apple's liking.
My company's app uses (and is based on) open source projects too, but our app is NOT open source.
Similarly, OS X itself is not open source. They have some behavior that smells like it, but they decide what gets released, and completely control that repository.
In any event, as to the original topic of Linux Live/DAW use:
I'll switch in a heartbeat, once the following criteria are met:
I can use (natively) the midi interfaces and controllers I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the audio interfaces and controllers I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the DAW hosts I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the plugins I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
By natively, I mean:
I want drivers from the manufacturers, officially supported... no hacking by me or OS projects... just install and go.
I want applications and plugins that run natively, without the help of emulators like WINE. I don't do wine.
When that happens, I'll be there. Pro-level cards (no soundblasters), pro-level interfaces, pro-level apps... all with proper support.
I have that now (most of the time) on Windows and Mac, so I don't see a single reason to even consider Linux. It would be VERY constricting, and would require me to step down in quality and selection on almost every level.
That said, I like Linux. I'm typing on it right now, and use it all the time (8-10 hours a day, actually). In fact, I use it more than I use OS X and Windows combined. But NOT for media creation.
- zevo
I think they mean, it's based on open source projects, which it certainly is to some degree: it uses open source projects, hacked to Apple's liking.
My company's app uses (and is based on) open source projects too, but our app is NOT open source.
Similarly, OS X itself is not open source. They have some behavior that smells like it, but they decide what gets released, and completely control that repository.
In any event, as to the original topic of Linux Live/DAW use:
I'll switch in a heartbeat, once the following criteria are met:
I can use (natively) the midi interfaces and controllers I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the audio interfaces and controllers I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the DAW hosts I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
I can use (natively) the plugins I want (and I want a selection to choose from).
By natively, I mean:
I want drivers from the manufacturers, officially supported... no hacking by me or OS projects... just install and go.
I want applications and plugins that run natively, without the help of emulators like WINE. I don't do wine.
When that happens, I'll be there. Pro-level cards (no soundblasters), pro-level interfaces, pro-level apps... all with proper support.
I have that now (most of the time) on Windows and Mac, so I don't see a single reason to even consider Linux. It would be VERY constricting, and would require me to step down in quality and selection on almost every level.
That said, I like Linux. I'm typing on it right now, and use it all the time (8-10 hours a day, actually). In fact, I use it more than I use OS X and Windows combined. But NOT for media creation.
- zevo
infinite density, zero volume
-
leedsquietman
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
- Location: greater toronto area
OSX on first release involved a lot of work with the open source linux communities but the love in between OSX and Linux ended some time ago, Apple have been adding more and more proprietary items and Apple have gone from being darlings to demons in the Linux world. Not my words, several commentaries from various computer magazines and internet articles.
Nothing good on Windows ?? Good God man !! If that was the case people would have no need for Bootcamp. BUt still, there are many excellent programs on the PC Platform which are non mac, including Wavelab, Sonar, Soundforge, Samplitude, Fruity Loops, ACID, Microsoft Office, not to mention thousands of vst fx and instruments and gaming (done much gaming in Mac OSX lately?). This used to be the argument of the anti-mac brigade and is an idle comment not based on fact both ways. Bootcamp makes Mac a viable and more attractive proposition for change for PC users. Just having a limited spectrum of OSX programs, however stable and good, is restrictive and that has now being addressed. Now mac users have the benefit of OSX and Bootcamp to run windows programs, compared to the abhorration which is Vista currently. But Vista will eventually be a good platform too, in the same way XP was a couple of years in until the end.
Linux - Needs a few companies to jump in with well known branded products and not just software to power servers. Also, needs to be steamlined in terms of distributions, I'm glad that Ubuntu is leading the way, there are too many distributions and that confuses the hell out of the new user. I hope it happens, mac osx and windows could use a serious challenge in the home market.
Nothing good on Windows ?? Good God man !! If that was the case people would have no need for Bootcamp. BUt still, there are many excellent programs on the PC Platform which are non mac, including Wavelab, Sonar, Soundforge, Samplitude, Fruity Loops, ACID, Microsoft Office, not to mention thousands of vst fx and instruments and gaming (done much gaming in Mac OSX lately?). This used to be the argument of the anti-mac brigade and is an idle comment not based on fact both ways. Bootcamp makes Mac a viable and more attractive proposition for change for PC users. Just having a limited spectrum of OSX programs, however stable and good, is restrictive and that has now being addressed. Now mac users have the benefit of OSX and Bootcamp to run windows programs, compared to the abhorration which is Vista currently. But Vista will eventually be a good platform too, in the same way XP was a couple of years in until the end.
Linux - Needs a few companies to jump in with well known branded products and not just software to power servers. Also, needs to be steamlined in terms of distributions, I'm glad that Ubuntu is leading the way, there are too many distributions and that confuses the hell out of the new user. I hope it happens, mac osx and windows could use a serious challenge in the home market.
http://soundcloud.com/umbriel-rising http://www.myspace.com/leedsquietmandemos Live 7.0.18 SUITE, Cubase 5.5.2], Soundforge 9, Dell XPS M1530, 2.2 Ghz C2D, 4GB, Vista Ult SP2, legit plugins a plenty, Alesis IO14.
robin wrote:@noisetonepause
What do you think it would take to make Linux a good consistent platform for audio (In fact a good consistent platform for the desktop too really)?
all the linux people i know insist on living in the past, when things were hard
and complicated.
let em have it.
go get wine, install live.
later..