Wild Bill wrote:

> Why does Linux need 20 different distributions?

A "distribution" is some version of the Linux kernel with somebody's
modifications, bundled with
the stuff that they think you need. Everyone things they can make it
better, and WOW! It's Still Free!

--
"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

These 20 Linux music packages are created by 20 different teams. Each
package contains a somewhat different set of music programs (though
some regular apps like Alsa Modular Synth or Ardour appear in all
20).

Each was developed and troubleshooted only for the CPU/s and soundcard/
s and MIDI interfaces what the author/s had. So if your computer
configuration is different from theirs, it's anyone's guess to what
degree the package (er, "distro") will work for you. My test PC's
soundcard being an ALC883, and MIDI interface being a Midisport Uno, I
discovered only 1 out of 20 worked on it well. YMMV.

Some pricey soundcards like the RME Hammerfall series (around $500
each) will reportedly nearly guarantee that Linux distros will work on
your computer. Well... if I were starting out today with $500 total to
spend on a studio... I'd just buy a used Korg Triton keyboard and
never worry about Linux (or even computers). Just my 2 cents, of
course.

hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> You didn't waste any of his time. He has plenty of time to **** around
> pretending he's an audio pro running Linux.
>

Funny, you don't catch too many Linux pros defending its audio.... last
Plumbers conference said things like "the basic model for audio in
Linux is fatally flawed" ( paraphrasing extremely, I am). Why, only
last year, I could not spel "l33t kernel hax0r" and now I R 1.

(Reaper under WINE... yooo betcha... someday... )

--
Les Cargill

Franklin Abud wrote:
<snip>
>>> 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.
>

Not a bad hypothesis. I am an UN-snob - I take perverse pride in
how little I can spend. The answer is something akin to
path dependence.

DAW grew up in the '80s and '90s, starting
with the Amiga ( or thereabouts ) and got really serious for
home use around when Win95 came out.

Ardour started not long after, but it's a biiig task,
and it's very tricky. Windows exposed a compact,
very lightweigth multimedia API that gave tactical advantage
( ignoring the real deal, macs, because I don't know anything
about 'em).

I still use a Doze DAW from ten years ago. it's the
mathematician's wastebasket problem - tell a mathematician
"take out the trash", he says "I did that last week,
QED."

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

Nah. It's just an O/S. When people ask, tell 'em
"Reaper runs under WINE." That buys time for Ardour.

but then they become addicted to Reaper, so...



--
Les Cargill

Wild Bill wrote:
> 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.

The kernel is monolithic*. Linux isn't.

*I know,I know...

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:

> Not a bad hypothesis. I am an UN-snob - I take perverse pride in how
> little I can spend. The answer is something akin to path dependence.

So you should be a strong advocate for Linux, then! ;-)

> Nah. It's just an O/S. When people ask, tell 'em
> "Reaper runs under WINE." That buys time for Ardour.

I've had great success over quite a few years with Ardour (though that
includes several upgrades of the software), including working on
projects where the input tracks were recorded on ProTools in a Real
Studio(TM). However, I agree with an earlier poster who indicated the
problem with Linux audio applications is that there isn't anyone
offering the depth of support (read primarily, "up to date and complete
documentation") the way there is for the proprietary commercial
applications. If there was, I'm sure that it would be building an
audience. Another side of that problem, though, is that it can be
difficult to get people to agree to pay for "vendor support" for
software that's available for free.

Those who think that free software is inferior because it costs less
than the commercial packages haven't really tried the best of the free
software that's out there. There's some good stuff out there, though it
might not be as "pretty" as some commercial packages.

I make my living as a computer analyst, and record music (or even just
sounds) as a hobby, though, so the computer aspect is "easy" for me. I
use Linux exclusively at home and at work.

Note that I completely disagree with an earlier message that suggested
one needs to be able to be a programmer to use Linux; the person who
wrote that clearly hasn't used Linux for any significant amount of time,
and may be basing that opinion on a very brief first impression; given
similar consideration, one could argue that someone who wants to use
Windows for a DAW needs to be ready to restart the computer every time
they need to make a decision, or that someone using a Mac better not be
looking to do anything more complex than the mainstream ... one would
likely be proven wrong, trying to make either argument, though ...

Conceptually, Ardour is comparable to commercial DAW software. If the
user bothers to not care about "brand", it's no harder (nor easier) to
use. Different DAW packages include different features that set them
apart. They all have a learning curve that needs to be overcome, but
once the concepts are understood with one package, they apply to the
others that provide similar functionality.

Ardour may have only the basic DAW features (in fact, in several
years of using it, I've never thought "I wish Ardour had ..."; I
don't even know what features it lacks that commercial packages have,
except perhaps integration with a MIDI sequencer the way Digital
Performer integrates DAW with MIDI sequencing; I'm sure others have
similar integration), but given the price, combined with the price
for any number of other packages it can be supplemented with, one
might want to ask whether some features really are worth the price.
For some people, they will be. Heck, for some people, just being able
to store a project onto a data DVD, and being able to count on going
to some other studio that will be able to work with the same project
files as though they'd been created right there, is worth the money.
We don't all have the same priorities.

As I note above, I've been able to take files recorded on a ProTools
system, and import them into an Ardour session, and mix in Ardour. I've
not tried going the other way, but it would be interesting to know
whether it can be done.

Probably the biggest disadvantage free software (whether Linux itself,
the distributions, or specific applications) has compared to the
commercial software world is a lack of advertising. People don't know
how far the software has come because there isn't anyone telling them.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille (E-Mail Removed)

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Les Cargill wrote:

> Not a bad hypothesis. I am an UN-snob - I take perverse pride in
> how little I can spend.

Ah, so you're a Furgal-snob. <g>

> Ardour started not long after, but it's a biiig task,
> and it's very tricky.

Ardour started out (at least when I first saw it) as a copy of the Mackie
HDR24/96. I don't think that anyone at the time ever tested it, or even
defined it, for 24 channels of simultaneous input and output. Eventually
it grew editing and processing appendages.




--
"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

Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

> Conceptually, Ardour is comparable to commercial DAW software.

Conceptually, you can say that any DAW is comparable to any other DAW,
as long as you put some reasonable bounds on the minimum requirements
of a DAW. Is Audacity a DAW? To some it is because it does everything they
want it to. Is ProTools a DAW? Most definitely.

> If the
> user bothers to not care about "brand", it's no harder (nor easier) to
> use.

The thing about Ardour, particularly for a non-Linux user, or a Linux user
who is unfamiliar with audio interfacing on the software side, is that
it can
be difficult to get working, and impossible to get working with certain
fairly
common and useful interface hardware, simply because nobody has written
support for it yet. I've been told that you don't need to know Jack
about JACK
in order to use Ardour, and I think that's true if you're content to use
your
PC motherboard's built in audio hardware. But pick up a $200 8x8 USB2.0
I/O box from your local Guitar Center and try to get it up and running
and you'll
be running back to Guitar Center looking for a $1500 RME (or a refund).

> As I note above, I've been able to take files recorded on a ProTools
> system, and import them into an Ardour session, and mix in Ardour.

That's pretty easy since for mixing already-recorded tracks you don't need
any inputs and you only need a stereo output. But that doesn't make a
DAW, at least not in my concept.

> Probably the biggest disadvantage free software (whether Linux itself,
> the distributions, or specific applications) has compared to the
> commercial software world is a lack of advertising.

Word-of-mouth is excellent advertising. While we don't hear very much jabber
about the RNC compressor any more, it became quite successful with no
advertising
other than newsgroup and forum discussions. The biggest disadvantage that
Ardour has is that nobody has written Ardour for Dummies, because when
it comes
to Ardour, most musicians, producers, and audio engineers ARE dummies.

Getting back to my original post, I think this is where the Indemixx
folks might
have a shard of success in that they provide a turnkey system as one of
their
options. I don't know what sort of documentation they've written for it,
but if it's
good, then they might sell a few systems to the mavericks. And IF the source
code is really open source (I'm not sure it is since they sell downloads
for the
distribution) then the experimenters can take their shots at it.



--
"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

Les Cargill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Mike Rivers <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > You didn't waste any of his time. He has plenty of time to **** around
> > pretending he's an audio pro running Linux.
> >
>
> Funny, you don't catch too many Linux pros defending its audio.... last
> Plumbers conference said things like "the basic model for audio in
> Linux is fatally flawed" ( paraphrasing extremely, I am). Why, only
> last year, I could not spel "l33t kernel hax0r" and now I R 1.
>
> (Reaper under WINE... yooo betcha... someday... )

I'll take a sixer of a good IPA, Logic Studio, and a free afternoon.

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

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

> Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
>
> > Conceptually, Ardour is comparable to commercial DAW software.
>
> Conceptually, you can say that any DAW is comparable to any other DAW,
> as long as you put some reasonable bounds on the minimum requirements
> of a DAW. Is Audacity a DAW? To some it is because it does everything they
> want it to. Is ProTools a DAW? Most definitely.
>
> > If the
> > user bothers to not care about "brand", it's no harder (nor easier) to
> > use.
>
> The thing about Ardour, particularly for a non-Linux user, or a Linux user
> who is unfamiliar with audio interfacing on the software side, is that
> it can
> be difficult to get working, and impossible to get working with certain
> fairly
> common and useful interface hardware, simply because nobody has written
> support for it yet. I've been told that you don't need to know Jack
> about JACK
> in order to use Ardour, and I think that's true if you're content to use
> your
> PC motherboard's built in audio hardware. But pick up a $200 8x8 USB2.0
> I/O box from your local Guitar Center and try to get it up and running
> and you'll
> be running back to Guitar Center looking for a $1500 RME (or a refund).
>
> > As I note above, I've been able to take files recorded on a ProTools
> > system, and import them into an Ardour session, and mix in Ardour.
>
> That's pretty easy since for mixing already-recorded tracks you don't need
> any inputs and you only need a stereo output. But that doesn't make a
> DAW, at least not in my concept.
>
> > Probably the biggest disadvantage free software (whether Linux itself,
> > the distributions, or specific applications) has compared to the
> > commercial software world is a lack of advertising.
>
> Word-of-mouth is excellent advertising. While we don't hear very much jabber
> about the RNC compressor any more, it became quite successful with no
> advertising
> other than newsgroup and forum discussions. The biggest disadvantage that
> Ardour has is that nobody has written Ardour for Dummies, because when
> it comes
> to Ardour, most musicians, producers, and audio engineers ARE dummies.

Not only that, but if this or that distribution is critical to
successful operation, and that depends on a specific hardware
configuration, how many versions of that A for D will we need to make a
reasonable contribution to professional audio work?

I do really appreciate open source offerings. Just yesterday I found
Handbrake, which successfully converts .vob files I've been handed
(video of a recent performance) into MPEG's that I can use in iMovie to
sketch video for promotion of our act.

I use NeoOffice, which brings one the typical "office" suite for very
little money (or none, depending on one's situation). The deal there is
that it works with most hardware, and does so just like most other apps
of that type.

That's where pro auido on Linux hits the rocks, still. I look forward to
hearing someday that it navigates around the rocks easily, but I'm not
reading that yet. I'm not a computer guru. I'm a dumbass guitar player.
If I set out to get pro audio running for me under Linux, I might as
well sell the guitars.

> Getting back to my original post, I think this is where the Indemixx
> folks might
> have a shard of success in that they provide a turnkey system as one of
> their
> options. I don't know what sort of documentation they've written for it,
> but if it's
> good, then they might sell a few systems to the mavericks. And IF the source
> code is really open source (I'm not sure it is since they sell downloads
> for the
> distribution) then the experimenters can take their shots at it.


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