I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
report that Linux was almost completely absent.
I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
level.

Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
like Protools.

A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
ignored? The only reason I can come up with is Bill Gates and the
other conglomerates who want to extort money from us artists.

Linux rulez and everything else drools.

Linuxfreak

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:04:54 -0500, Franklin Abud wrote:

> I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
> report that Linux was almost completely absent.
> I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
> level.
>
> Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
> Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
> like Protools.
>
> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> ignored? The only reason I can come up with is Bill Gates and the
> other conglomerates who want to extort money from us artists.
>
> Linux rulez and everything else drools.
>
> Linuxfreak

Linux sucks for anything but servers and embedded devices like
Linux powered toilet bowls and so forth.

If you think Linux in it's current state can replace ProTools you
are daft.

Ask yourself why a free product like Linux is virtually ignored.
You now have your answer.
Free is only superior when the product works.
Linux doesn't.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Kreplach Productions
1/21/2010 11:50:45 PM

Left brain/right brain

I was just having lunch with an engineer friend who does his music schtick
as a hobby. Guy designs all sorts of wonderous **** but admits if he has to
set up gear before he plays he can't achieve his peak musical level. Head
just isn't in the right place. If you want to play with linux you HAVE to
be able to program. Even if software is available the OS has to be
customised, and etc etc etc. No one is doing it for you. And by the time
you jump that hurdle your just not feeling like a musician anymore. You
need to hire a team to prep for you, and if you can afford that you can
easily afford finished usable and ready windows software. So its really no
mystery at all. Now if Linux hobbists want to freely dedicate their time to
serving the annoying musings of greasy musicians... maybe the tide will
change.










....having said that the noise reduction of the latest Audicity build is
really quite good. Not quite as good as Sound Forge noise reduction but
head noddingly quite close. Whoever the hell you are that created it please
keep up the good work...

"Franklin Abud" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1otohzx1lpey6$.(E-Mail Removed).. .
>I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
> report that Linux was almost completely absent.
> I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
> level.
>
> Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
> Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
> like Protools.
>
> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> ignored? The only reason I can come up with is Bill Gates and the
> other conglomerates who want to extort money from us artists.
>
> Linux rulez and everything else drools.
>
> Linuxfreak

On Jan 22, 4:04*am, Franklin Abud <infognito...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
> report that Linux was almost completely absent.
> I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
> level.
>
> Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
> Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
> like Protools.
>
> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> ignored? The only reason I can come up with is Bill Gates and the
> other conglomerates who want to extort money from us artists.
>
> Linux rulez and everything else drools.
>
> Linuxfreak

Some commercial "hardware" products run embedded Linux, but that
obviously isn't visible to the purchaser.

Franklin Abud wrote:
> I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
> report that Linux was almost completely absent.
> I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
> level.

The Indimixx folks would very much like to see their product used at the
professional level, but how far can you take "professional" on a small
screen
with a limited audio I/O setup. Perhaps this is confirmation of the
sense in the
"Is Linux suitable for professional audio use?" discussion that
blessedly has
seem to run its course here for this season.

I think Indamixx is doing the right thing by selling a turnkey system
including
hardware. But they're taking baby steps, seemingly looking at the traveling
artist who isn't computer-smart and wants to take some work with him on the
road. I would have been more impressed if they showed it running on a full
sized computer with a big monitor, at least 8 channels of I/O, and real
audio
running through it rather than just a stereo playback.

> Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?

Because practically nobody is supporting it like a professional product.

> Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
> like Protools.

Perhaps functionally, once people learn it, but it isn't doing the
mainstream
user any favors in terms of user friendly documentation and training.
It's not
going to get off the ground based on the heartfelt testimony of a few
diehard
"I can make my computer do anything I want" users telling about some unique
problem they needed to solve, and for which Linux was the best approach.

> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> ignored?

Because they aren't visible to the general audio community, and with few
exceptions, they aren't doing anything that can't be done with more
accessible and better supported applications.

> Linux rulez and everything else drools.
> Linuxfreak

Oh, never mind. I thought that since this was posted to rec.audio.pro only,
not cross-posted to Linux advocacy newsgroups, you were really serious.
Sorry for wasting your time and perhaps starting another useless thread.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson

Mike Rivers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Franklin Abud wrote:
> > I just got back from a couple of days at NAMM and I'm sorry to
> > report that Linux was almost completely absent.
> > I did see some equipment at Indamixx but it was not professional
> > level.
>
> The Indimixx folks would very much like to see their product used at the
> professional level, but how far can you take "professional" on a small
> screen
> with a limited audio I/O setup. Perhaps this is confirmation of the
> sense in the
> "Is Linux suitable for professional audio use?" discussion that
> blessedly has
> seem to run its course here for this season.
>
> I think Indamixx is doing the right thing by selling a turnkey system
> including
> hardware. But they're taking baby steps, seemingly looking at the traveling
> artist who isn't computer-smart and wants to take some work with him on the
> road. I would have been more impressed if they showed it running on a full
> sized computer with a big monitor, at least 8 channels of I/O, and real
> audio
> running through it rather than just a stereo playback.
>
> > Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
>
> Because practically nobody is supporting it like a professional product.
>
> > Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
> > like Protools.
>
> Perhaps functionally, once people learn it, but it isn't doing the
> mainstream
> user any favors in terms of user friendly documentation and training.
> It's not
> going to get off the ground based on the heartfelt testimony of a few
> diehard
> "I can make my computer do anything I want" users telling about some unique
> problem they needed to solve, and for which Linux was the best approach.
>
> > A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> > ignored?
>
> Because they aren't visible to the general audio community, and with few
> exceptions, they aren't doing anything that can't be done with more
> accessible and better supported applications.
>
> > Linux rulez and everything else drools.
> > Linuxfreak
>
> Oh, never mind. I thought that since this was posted to rec.audio.pro only,
> not cross-posted to Linux advocacy newsgroups, you were really serious.
> Sorry for wasting your time and perhaps starting another useless thread.

You didn't waste any of his time. He has plenty of time to **** around
pretending he's an audio pro running Linux.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/hsadharma

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:08:46 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:



> I think Indamixx is doing the right thing by selling a turnkey system
> including
> hardware. But they're taking baby steps, seemingly looking at the traveling
> artist who isn't computer-smart and wants to take some work with him on the
> road. I would have been more impressed if they showed it running on a full
> sized computer with a big monitor, at least 8 channels of I/O, and real
> audio
> running through it rather than just a stereo playback.

It's aimed at being portable and more of a scratch pad for
creating.
All the software will run on a full sized system if you wish and
most if not all of it is open source and free so you can build
your own if you so desire.

>> Why is Linux being ignored for professional audio recording?
>
> Because practically nobody is supporting it like a professional product.

I think it's more like gear snobbery.


>> Surely Linux with Ardour and Audacity can replace overpriced junk
>> like Protools.
>
> Perhaps functionally, once people learn it, but it isn't doing the
> mainstream
> user any favors in terms of user friendly documentation and training.
> It's not
> going to get off the ground based on the heartfelt testimony of a few
> diehard
> "I can make my computer do anything I want" users telling about some unique
> problem they needed to solve, and for which Linux was the best approach.

In a turnkey system, you just plug it in and the software is
already set up to work with the hardware so there is no fussing
with it.


>> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
>> ignored?
>
> Because they aren't visible to the general audio community, and with few
> exceptions, they aren't doing anything that can't be done with more
> accessible and better supported applications.

Gear snobbery again.

>> Linux rulez and everything else drools.
>> Linuxfreak
>
> Oh, never mind. I thought that since this was posted to rec.audio.pro only,
> not cross-posted to Linux advocacy newsgroups, you were really serious.
> Sorry for wasting your time and perhaps starting another useless thread.

Apologies.
I'm on fire for Linux and sometimes get carried away.

Linux isn't being ignored. I checked it like I check everything else
available. I went through all 20 known distros back in Nov.Dec 2009,
the chronicle is on Linuxforums.org.

I already went through 215 Gigs of other stuff since then, I just
don't publish those other records.

> >> A lot of people are using Linux for audio, so why is it being
> >> ignored?

All 20 known *music* distros, that is.

On Jan 22, 9:35*am, Keoki <ofc....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went through all 20 known distros

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 15:52:10 -0800 (PST), Keoki wrote:

> All 20 known *music* distros, that is.
>
> On Jan 22, 9:35*am, Keoki <ofc....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I went through all 20 known distros

Why does Linux need 20 different distributions?
Aren't they all much the same?
I thought Linux was the kernel.