Ableton Forum

it is Linux and Wine :

http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7270104304.html

mdk wrote:it is Linux and Wine :

http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7270104304.html

I strive to try and learn some thing new every day.
Today has been no exception...

My XP works fine but I would love to be able to use Ubuntu Studio as long as all my audio drivers worked fine and didn't need Wine to run Live.

not much point, an OEM version of vista is only £90 and you only have to change about every 5 years, thats about 34 pence a week!

so, no not much point is there??

Moody wrote:Let me try to paint a real picture of how Linux and an application like Live could be the simplest method of deploying the application. Currently, Ableton is fighting many battles to make Live work for everyone. (or atleast for the majority)

Why? Because, of Windows and all the hardware platforms people are attempting to run it on combined with the efforts to stablize it on Apple's various hardware and OS platforms. This is a difficult task. Hell, it is difficult for Microsoft to get everything they own to work together.

So, everybody is thinking that putting Linux into the mix could further confuse the issues. Obviously with the current approach it would but, here is the catch.... If, Ableton provided a Hardware Compatibility List (including desktops, laptops and audio interfaces) and built there own Linux (or any kernel) Kernel with Live as the exclusive GUI the world of variables become a lot smaller and become controlled variables.

So the experience now goes like this. I check the HCL, buy my compatible hardware which will most likely already have Winblows or OSX which you can use for whatever you want and now I install my Live but this time it installs itself parallel to the OS as a bootable option. So now I boot into an enviroment that is completely under the control of the Abes. This is what most of us are trying to achieve anyways when using full screen mode but, we cut out all the middle men.

Eh, who knows I may just be a dreamer but I am not the only one.

Now that would be the way to go !
Ableton ?
How much does an Akai MPC cost ?
How much much does a laptop cost ?
How much more powerful is a recent laptop compared to a hardware device such as an MPC or equivalent ?

I've just had my ibook nicked ; can't afford a new mac, refuse to go "back" to Mcrsft.
I've never liked the idea of bringing my emails on stage anyway, and have always favoured hardware, because it is so task specific, and gets to the point.

Having a program such as live run at root level (which wouldn't have to exclude being able to boot up on another OS in order to use the computer for other stuff) would really be the best of both worlds.

And I'd sure as hell keep paying for upgrades to an app that was WAAAAY more powerful and easy to use than ANY MPC-like, espescially as the cost of hardware keeps going down.

Surely a (once) forward looking company like Ableton wouldn't want someone to beat them to it. Robert ? Gerhard ?

Yes.
But only if it comes with its own distribution (AbleNux or Livbuntu) on certified hardware.
Dreams.

I don't see the point at all, Win 7 on the right hardware is fast and stable in my experience.
I have used unix (freebsd & netbsd) and linux (redhat) on servers, but I've not yet found a desktop distro that I liked.

If your talking about a custom built box dedicated to running just live, I would say xp embedded would be a better option than a linux derivative, Live's code already runs on xp so porting it to xp embedded should be fairly trivial.
I think Apple has an embedded version of osx (Apple TV?) so I suppose even that would be an option, or at least it would if osx wasn't such a closed enviroment.

You can already set up your xp box to boot with live as the shell, or tweak xp so it only runs what you need to use live, but again I think it's pretty pointless unless you're using really marginal hardware.

Homebelly wrote:

Nick the Zombie wrote:

abort wrote:I have read through most of everyone's comments and thought to myself, I don't want Ableton Live on Windows or OS or Linux.

I would like to see Ableton Live ..One of the best creative DAW's around to Be independent!!!

I would like to see ableton Live BOOT my computer up and go straight to a new session!!! with maybe small apps that would run inside ableton like burn to disk or a basic system utility options box.

Why can't we just install ableton on are hard drives as a new operating system!!?

I think that would be the best!!!

This would be an interesting productivity experiment. An OS that consists entirely of your favorite music creation software, free of the typical distractions such as email, etc. Would we just find other things to be distracted by, or would we truly be more focused?

Either way, cool idea.

I would love this..
I kinda-sorta fool my self into thinking this us already the way using full screen mode .
Would i be right in thinking that if Live was its own OS, then it would run leaner and faster?

this is something which is called 'software appliance'. very common in IT - mostly in data canter areas, server related.
a certain linux distro is used and tailored exactly to the needs of the running app/service.

what you have to keep in mind though, is that these 'software appliances' usually come /w very strict hardware and driver support. but on the other hand, if you know what works with it you won't be trapped buying the 'wrong' piece of gear.

it's not possible IMHO for a company of Ableton's size to support the incredibly huge number of linux distros and versions.

just my 0.02$

j2j wrote:why?


I am just curious, cause it looks like apple is going to crapland, and microsoft allready in crapland....


so, we are left with Linux. so, would you do it? or would you be apprehensvei on the stability front?

Do you think more vst, and au synths are coming?

How does linux handle audio anyways, does anybody know?


oh, I guess the question is: Are their any linux fans here with on on the Abe's forum, and what can you tell to us curious folk, about the least used major os on earth?

i like the concept of linux, but is a horrible thing for making music, i have try some solutions (ubuntu studio etc.). if you want to make music, its very unhandy in linux. in the last 10 year linux is growing up, but w/o big help from big companies its really hard to build a linux which has all the functions a pro-user need w/o beeing a linux nerd.

in my opinion apple has more focus on entertaiment stuff in the last years(i dont mean the mac pro series ), but this is market related. the os is fine but the hardware must be cheaper and cheaper for the most users. ok, what makes the diffrence to windows machines, nothing. (i not need to discuss about apple warranty services *ggg*)

windows 7 is really stable and working fine, microsoft has made their homework! its matter of taste..

finally at my view it makes no sense to port ableton to linux at this time.


sorry for my bad english...

Peace&Sun
T

Oh yes! I could get rid of windows on my surfboard pc.

Or if they would upgrade LMMS to this millenium it would be good eough to write down some ideas. Now its just horrible

Lucidity wrote:I don't see how it would be that hard really though, surely all you have to do is alter the OSX version, I mean both OSX and Linux are UNIX derivatives, surely there's a lot of common ground?

OSX if I remember correctly is direct descendent derivitive of the Mach OS micro kernel - which I think first saw use in NeXT cubes under the name NeXT step (or was it Open Step?). It is not unix based at its heart, though the kernel was I think designed as a drop in replacement for the core of a unix type OS, just a hell of alot better at dealing with real time and resource scheduling etc, and since has brought onboard quite a bit of unix code concepts into the core OS, and so is definately a unix OS on the outside.

I also think the Linux kernel isnt really unix derivative at heart either, in fact I remember encoutering obscure networking bugs in its that were also present in windows winsock at the time, but not present in NetBSD, SunOS and other unixes like OS I used back in those days, suggesting more than a little in common with some bits of old 9x windows.

Going back to Mach OS for a sec - while OSX certainly seems to be a direct descendent, the other guy who was largely responsible for its original development ended up at Microsoft - Im guess in time to start work on Windows NT which in turn became windows 2000, XP, Vista, and now windows 7.

Anyway - this is my old and now very fuzzy memory - in the outide OSX and Linux may seem similar, but under the hood at micro kernel level - I wouldnt be suprised if OSX actually had more in common with Windows 7 than Linux.

Inerestingly another couple of branches are in common use - Windows CE/Smartphone OS which came from windows NT and the iPhoneOS came from OSX - We all know which is a hell of alot more reliable and responsive etc

twisted-space wrote:I don't see the point at all, Win 7 on the right hardware is fast and stable in my experience.
I have used unix (freebsd & netbsd) and linux (redhat) on servers, but I've not yet found a desktop distro that I liked.

If your talking about a custom built box dedicated to running just live, I would say xp embedded would be a better option than a linux derivative, Live's code already runs on xp so porting it to xp embedded should be fairly trivial.
I think Apple has an embedded version of osx (Apple TV?) so I suppose even that would be an option, or at least it would if osx wasn't such a closed enviroment.

You can already set up your xp box to boot with live as the shell, or tweak xp so it only runs what you need to use live, but again I think it's pretty pointless unless you're using really marginal hardware.

I seem to have a lot of luck with my systems. W7 rocks for me. All of my systems are 64 bit with slightly older hardware. I've tried many times to like Linux. I just don't know many how many times I tried. Trying to type a bunch of characters that I have no clue what I'm doing to get a USB device to work is a waste of time. I wish I could like it but I don't. Of course I said that about Live about 5 years ago when I got those CDs with M-Audio gear.

Yes

Khazul wrote:

Lucidity wrote:I don't see how it would be that hard really though, surely all you have to do is alter the OSX version, I mean both OSX and Linux are UNIX derivatives, surely there's a lot of common ground?

OSX if I remember correctly is direct descendent derivitive of the Mach OS micro kernel - which I think first saw use in NeXT cubes under the name NeXT step (or was it Open Step?). It is not unix based at its heart, though the kernel was I think designed as a drop in replacement for the core of a unix type OS, just a hell of alot better at dealing with real time and resource scheduling etc, and since has brought onboard quite a bit of unix code concepts into the core OS, and so is definately a unix OS on the outside.

OS X's kernel is a hodge-podge of Mach and FreeBSD, basically. NeXT's kernel was Mach and 4.2BSD, but they updated it quite a bit in the late 90's using FreeBSD code before NeXT became OS X. OpenStep (or OPENSTEP, or whatever) was the name for a standardisation of the NeXTSTEP Objective-C APIs what later became Cocoa, one of Apple's proprietary set of APIs for writing applications for OS X.

But this is all quite irrelevant to porting Live to Linux. The parts of Live that are specific to OS X use proprietary Apple APIs, not the UNIX ones that OS X and Linux have in common. There are three Apple-sanctioned ways to write apps for OS X: Cocoa, Carbon (which was based on the old Mac APIs) and POSIX (ie. UNIX). Live uses Carbon and this is what matters when you port software: you've got a pile of code written which uses one or more of these sets of APIs and there's just no way to magically transform Carbon code into Cocoa code or POSIX code, so you can't make your app run on a platform which doesn't provide the APIs you're using without, well, rewriting the relevant code. And since Linux doesn't provide libraries for Carbon, there's no way Ableton are going to make Live run on Linux without rewriting the bits that touch Carbon.

I also think the Linux kernel isnt really unix derivative at heart either, in fact I remember encoutering obscure networking bugs in its that were also present in windows winsock at the time, but not present in NetBSD, SunOS and other unixes like OS I used back in those days, suggesting more than a little in common with some bits of old 9x windows.

Linux is not based on UNIX code like OS X, Solaris and BSD are. It's completely original but is basically a clone of UNIX as it looked around 1990 and uses (mostly) compatible APIs.

Anyways, if you care about the bowels of OS X, Amit Singh wrote a great book about it and maintains a site with all you need to know. But as said, it's quite irrelevant to porting Live, since Live is not a UNIX application.