"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117637005k@trad...

In article writes:

My impression of Linux is that other than a core, it was never
engineered at all. It just grew, and is continuing to grow.

Yes, but there really are very few operating systems built in any other
way.

I guess, but while you and I can't get at it, I'd like to think that
all the necessary documentation for Windows resolves somewhere within
Microsoft, not here and there on a few hundred web sites.


I think by the time they finished with DOS/Windows, with Windows ME, nobody
knew what the hell was going on with the code, and nobody could figure it
out. But that's pure conjecture on my part.

jb

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Geoff Wood

wrote
on Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:04:38 +1200
:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message

apt-get install ardour*

It doesn't get any more "one step than that".

That's typing 22 characters. Instead of a double-click and possibly a
single OK click or two.

geoff

[2] A touch typist likes to keep his hands above the
"home keys": "ASDF" on the left, "JKL;" on the right.
While one can make nasty noises about the original
purpose of the QWERTY keyboard (in very olden times
the keys tended to jam; therefore the intent was to
make the touch typist type as slowly as possible :-) )
it's what many of us are trained on. The only
competing technology -- if one can call it that --
is the DVORAK keyboard. (I don't have comparison speeds
handy for the two.)

Either way, of course, the hands don't move much --
*until one has to pick up the entire hand and move
it over to the mouse*. This is a pain, and slows a
typist down; he has to locate the mouse, move it,
possibly click on a button, then locate the home keys
again on the hand that was using the mouse.[*]


This is probably the origin of the users distaste for typing at all, unless
she is in a 'text window' and can leave the mouse alone for a while. I've
often thought the web service interface, where completing a transaction
often requires shifting back and forth between keyboard and mouse to be
quite awkward - same with many word processors.

For its part Windows does allow usage of the ALT key.
This key allows for selection of menus without having
to use the wired soapbar -- though it could be more
consistent. (It could be a lot more consistent in
Linux, too.)


This is a holdover from some 'guified' DOS apps and windows 286 and 3.11,
where the ALT and TAB keys had a very consistent function. One could easily
navigate the GUI of wondows and bundled applications without a mouse. This
has become increasingly less so.
But it's highly naive to think that double-clicking is
easier than typing. Such, presumably, depends on the user.


You don't have to know anything, and the theory is that you can figure it
out more easily.

[*] The Amiga had an interesting capability, which might have
existed on other systems. One can press and hold down
the left and right Amiga keys, and the main pointer would
be movable via the arrow keys. It was slightly clumsy
but very helpful for those who didn't have a mouse handy.

Windows has this still, I believe, marketed as an app for people with
disabilities.

jb

Noah Roberts wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

JEDIDIAH wrote:


There's just not typically going to be an eye candy installer
for freeware/shareware type applications.

Nonetheless, for people for whom time is money and others
who consider an operating system to be something that is
just a necessasary nuisance standing between them and what
they want to do, such a standard and simple installer is a
mark of maturity.



I can't believe I'm getting into this discussion but since I
do have a rather unique historical prespective, what the hell.

If you say so. Apparently you think nobody but yourself is such a
person?

Huh? Non sequitor.


I choose my system because it works better.

You define "works better" different than a whole lot of
people. For most, that means a large, trivially installable
application base and operating system installation and use
that has been dumbed down to where grandma hasn't a problem.
That's Win and that, like it or not, is maturity. I don't
like MS even a little bit and wish the *ix world would get
its act together but the "works better" gap seems to
continually widen rather than shrink.

I choose my system because
I spend less time battling it and more time using it.

You, perhaps. This is far from the general reaction.

I choose my
system because I am more productive in it. I choose Linux.

You have spent the time necessasary to be intimate with it
and I know from experience that that is saying a whole lot.

This conversation has gone from bad to worst to just stupid. Going
from a counter to a silly statement about Linux DAW to arguing that
install shield is the only mature way of installing software. What a
silly and ignorant argument.

Only if you fail to understand what this marketplace is
really about.

Oh well, if you want install GUIs and wizards comming out of your ass
then there are plenty of Linux options available for that. I happen to
choose not to use any of them. I don't suppose I need to repeate why.

You prefer command line interfaces. Ok.

I designed and built my first machine to run ATT Unix
(Version 7, IIRC) in 1982 or 1983 and did the port from 9
track distribution tapes to that system completely by myself
on a dumb ascii terminal in a smalll northern Illinois lab
surrounded by corn fields. It worked very well and for
quite a few years it (and I) supported the engineering group
I then hired and managed to develop a complex machine tool
control product (not Unix based because it was real time and
employed 3-way tightly coupled SMP.) I too like what I can
do with a good command line shell and personally bemoan the
loss, I'm just not naive enough to think that everyone should.

The real value of the InstallShield, other than its
simplicity, is that it provides consistency. Consistency of
behavior of sets of similar functions is _very_ important
for naive users. You say there are lots of ways to install
things on Linux, including GUI's and wizards, but you have
yet to realize that that is a problem, not a solution.

IBM was the first to realize this with its SNA (Systems
Network Architecture), whose purpose, partly, was to
standardize the controls and even the physical appearance of
applications wherever there was identifiable functional
overlap. Dunno what happened to that effort but they were
trying to force it on the entire industry, including PCs, so
I can take a pretty good swag. It may not have ended up
with their definition but the concept is utilized throughout
Windows and the applications for it. Has the Linux
community attempted to form and follow such standards in
other than the ad hoc fashion of developers sometimes
copying what's cool?

And that is my final problem with *ix, there is too much
cool and too little focus. Nothing seems to really get
done. Believe it or not, experienced management with teeth
serves an important purpose.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Noah Roberts wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

it would be nice for these alleged muscians and engineers
to actually articulate for the rest of us what is special about the
Win32 commercial offerings relative to their Linux counterparts.


They obviously don't know.

Nor do you, so what's the point.

I really would be interested in booting one of these CD's
that's supposed to be a canned Linux with audio apps and
check out Ardour against my workhorse Adobe Audition. I
can't, though, because there isn't Linux support for my
Yamaha DSP Factory sound interface. Sigh.

I've done a personal comparison with Audacity and know that
Audacity is a toy in comparison. I won't do a detailed
critique of each with respect to the other simply because
that is a very time consuming piece of work requiring two
systems which I don't have either.

I understand that you aren't interested in doing any
comparisons.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Noah Roberts wrote:

Bob Cain wrote:

Geoff Wood wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message



Things like disk defragmentation are an excellent example of the
annoyances
that Windows users have to put up with, that people in the rest of the
world don't really have to worry about.


The very occasion defrag (always when not otherwise in use) has never been a
problem , imposition, or even incovenience to me.

And never a necessity. It merely enhances performance by
making files contiguous on the drive.


You sure about that?

I'm not sure about anything but I'd make book on it.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article ,
"Geoff Wood" wrote:
Perhaps if you'd actually click the first link, you'd see how it answers
your question?

Sorry, we've tried that and it fails to impress.

After clicking, try *reading*.

--
--Tim Smith

En/na another viewer ha escrit:
In article ,
Arkady Duntov wrote:


fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?


no company needed. just mail the programmers.

http://www.ardour.org/support.php
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/contact

try having this level of support (contacting directly with the
programmers) with any propiertary application.

En/na Geoff Wood ha escrit:


Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what is
being altered in their boxes.

geoff



Today i got my packages updated. I can tell what packages were updated
and to which version. More control that this i think it can't be done.
Also i could have requested before upgrading which were the new
packages, so i could only upgrade the ones that i need.

By the way, all of you people who love GUI's, this could also could have
been done with a GUI (but then i wouldn't be able to cut and paste it
for you).

This is on a Mandrake/Mandriva distribution.


[root@cctpc035 root]# urpmi --auto-select --auto


ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm

ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm

ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm

ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm

ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm

ftp://ftp.uni-bayreuth.de/pub/linux/...01mdk.i586.rpm
s'està instal·lant
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/kdenetwork-common-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/libkdenetwork2-common-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/kdenetwork-kopete-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/libkdenetwork2-kopete-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/kdenetwork-kdict-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/lisa-3.2.3-19.4.101mdk.i586.rpm
S'està preparant...
##################################################
1:libkdenetwork2-kopete
##################################################
2:libkdenetwork2-common
##################################################
3:kdenetwork-common
##################################################
4:kdenetwork-kopete
##################################################
5:kdenetwork-kdict
##################################################
6:lisa
##################################################

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"Tim Smith" wrote:

Windows usually
requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X.

Like what? I'm not arguing, I just don't get it. I've heard people say
that before, and I figure there must be something I'm missing. I'm a
total turd-for-brains when it comes to computers, and my XP laptop with
Pro Tools Mbox works fine, with no "maintenance" required.

Admittedly I've never tried anything Unix based, except our Mac G4. It
blows its brains out twice a week for no apparent reason whatsoever, and
I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do even a simple disk defrag
on that mother****er.

Why would you want to do a disk defrag? Are you having bad performance
that you think a defrag would fix? Or is it just because you believe
that it's necessary from experience in the Windows world?

Speaking of which, do you do defrags on Windows? If so, then your claim
of no maintenance on Windows isn't really true.

For the record (and we are both speaking anecdotally), I have been
using OS X for about 2.5 years, and so far I can only recall one time
it crashed, and that was obviously due to a defective video card (which
drew jumbled crud all over the screen -- problem went away when the
video card was replaced).

So how come everyone says Windows is hard to live with?

My favorite example is when I had a hardware problem on my Windows
machine, so I built a new Windows machine (with a new boot disk)
and yanked the old disk and put it in the new machine. I could
see all my files, but half of them had mysterious permissions
problems. Even though I was logged in as an Administrator account,
I *still* couldn't even *read* these files, and they were just
regular data files that were created by a regular user, i.e. nothing
special. I kept hitting Properties on the files with permissions
errors, and there was just nothing in there that looked amiss.
Though XP is supposed to be a multi-user operating system, there
wasn't a tab where I could look at file ownership or access
control lists or anything, but I figured if it doesn't exist,
it can't be the problem.

Eventually I discovered that the problem was that Windows comes by
default configured with a mode called Simple File Sharing turned on.
Even though it has nothing *whatsoever* to do with *sharing* files,
this turns off the tab in a file's Properties dialog that lets you
see who owns the files and what the permissions are. So, it is
impossible to fix permissions errors for *local* access of files,
and the solution is to changing some file sharing thingy that
logically *cannot* be related. This is not my definition of "just
works" -- instead, it's my definition of a computing experience
that is either deliberately obfuscated or obfuscated because the
OS designers couldn't reason clearly enough to distinguish file
permissions from file sharing. Which, really, is quite astounding
when you consider that file permissions have been around for
something like 4 decades, if you include mainframes.

Another good example is a time when I brought my computer over to
a friend's house and wanted to share the internet connection
between his and my machine. I didn't have a separate router but
I did bring an old 10 megabit hub with me, so I figured I'd use
the built-in Windows Internet Connection Sharing. After a great
amount of struggle to set it up, I eventually found that Windows
simply can't do NAT (network address translation) unless you have
*two* physical ethernet interfaces, even though every other operating
system I've ever tried it on can do NAT on the same interface by
giving the interface two different IP addresses at once. Once I
did the research and found out that this simple task is seemingly
impossible on Windows, I decided to see if I could make my computer
(a Mac) do the sharing (NAT) instead. So, I went to the appropriate
control panel on the Mac, selected the interface I wanted to share
from and the interface(s) through which I wanted to share the
connection -- which happened to be the same interface in both
cases -- and it gave me a little warning (that in effect said my
ISP may get annoyed if I start serving DHCP requests on their
network, since it noticed the implications of sharing on the same
interface you talk to your ISP on) and then went ahead and shared
the connection just perfectly with no hassle at all.

It's that kind of stupidity that makes Windows hard to live with
for me. Windows just consistently finds ways to make tasks that
should be easy into tasks that are impossible. Other operating
systems (notably Linux) may make theoretically-easy things more
difficult than they should be. But a good motto is that computing
systems (whether it's operating systems or computer languages)
should "make easy things easy and difficult things possible".
To Windows is a great example of an OS that gratuitously makes
certain things impossible, which is one reason it's soooo annoying
to deal with sometimes.

- Logan

"Tim Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Geoff Wood" wrote:
Perhaps if you'd actually click the first link, you'd see how it
answers
your question?

Sorry, we've tried that and it fails to impress.

After clicking, try *reading*.

Did that - still doesn't give me a stiffy. Sorry.

geoff

Bob Cain writes:

Noah Roberts wrote:
JEDIDIAH wrote:

it would be nice for these alleged muscians and engineers
to actually articulate for the rest of us what is special about the Win32
commercial offerings relative to their Linux counterparts.
They obviously don't know.

Nor do you, so what's the point.

I really would be interested in booting one of these CD's that's supposed to
be a canned Linux with audio apps and check out Ardour against my workhorse
Adobe Audition. I can't, though, because there isn't Linux support for my
Yamaha DSP Factory sound interface. Sigh.

I've done a personal comparison with Audacity and know that Audacity is a toy
in comparison. I won't do a detailed critique of each with respect to the
other simply because that is a very time consuming piece of work requiring two
systems which I don't have either.

I understand that you aren't interested in doing any comparisons.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

I think Linux is good for several things:
- servers,
- embedded systems, eg., kiosks that can use mozilla as an interface
- research machines, eg., graphics, scientific computation, etc

But I agree, Linux is not great for end-user application software. For audio
work Audacity just does not compare to Audition. Nowhere near as nice.

I should mention that Linux can be practical for applications, but only if a
person is *already familiar with linux*, like for one of the above uses...

Richard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:24:59 +1200,
Geoff Wood wrote:

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 23:29:07 +1200,
Geoff Wood wrote:

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:flf0n2-

How about an office suite? the browser? your newsreader? did they come
from sony with that one click also? can you upgrade them all, with one
click? like I can?

Yes.



So when you upgrade yoru system, with that one click you mention, it
upgrades the browser, OE, your DAW stuff, and any and everything else on
the machine?

No , only the stuff I want it to automatically.


*could* you update any and everything from one simple click in that
manner. Or are there apps that you have to hunt the upgrades down, and
apply manually?




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCntJKd90bcYOAWPYRAgMOAJ0eGaCqofO39Jpp2KnqAp p8C3RybgCfaKKX
/L0/veFgwNI3GRIbPrjkVzs=
=A9er
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The New York Times, the paper that asks for more verification from it's
readers, than it's writers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:20:41 +1200,
Geoff Wood wrote:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-01, Geoff Wood wrote:

"Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:flf0n2-

How about an office suite? the browser? your newsreader? did they come
from sony with that one click also? can you upgrade them all, with one
click? like I can?

Yes.

Do tell.

What facility under Windows allows you to upgrade all classes
of applications, as well as the underlying OS with just one command or
button click.

This should be interesting.

Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what is
being altered in their boxes.



please don't sidestep the question.


It's pretty obvious from your responces to this thread, that you are
desperately trying to avoid admitting that the package management system
on MS-Windows, is a pale shadow of the Linux based systems used by
Debian &etc.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCntK0d90bcYOAWPYRAk/hAJ9aLSmkBEs17iXM/mGHEGRtqZK6ggCg3m/G
jLtQFwgXoSDJpqGKyW1u4fs=
=NWIz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you think you can tell me what to think,
I think I will tell you where to go

poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

I think Linux is good for several things:
- servers,
- embedded systems, eg., kiosks that can use mozilla as an interface
- research machines, eg., graphics, scientific computation, etc

But I agree, Linux is not great for end-user application software. For audio
work Audacity just does not compare to Audition. Nowhere near as nice.

I should mention that Linux can be practical for applications, but only if a
person is *already familiar with linux*, like for one of the above uses...

Same with Windows grin.

Anyway, you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.

For what it's worth, I greatly prefer Linux. For some purposes, it can
be *much* easier to use than Windows.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Bob Cain poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

You define "works better" different than a whole lot of
people. For most, that means a large, trivially installable
application base and operating system installation and use
that has been dumbed down to where grandma hasn't a problem.
That's Win...

If so, then why don't you buy a copy of Win XP and attempt to install it
on a spare machine. Better yet, get Grandma to try it.

If you don't have the OEM disks for XP for your computer, you're in for
quite a trek.

and that, like it or not, is maturity. I don't
like MS even a little bit and wish the *ix world would get
its act together but the "works better" gap seems to
continually widen rather than shrink.

You are absolutely full of it.

And that is my final problem with *ix, there is too much
cool and too little focus. Nothing seems to really get
done.

You are absolutely full of it.

Believe it or not, experienced management with teeth
serves an important purpose.

So does a community of volunteers.

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Geoff Wood poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Did that - still doesn't give me a stiffy. Sorry.

That belies your name, then! grin

--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

*could* you update any and everything from one simple click in that
manner. Or are there apps that you have to hunt the upgrades down, and
apply manually?

I recall a Windows app called Oilchange (or something like that) that did
this very thing. It did all this stuff, but wasn't a good idea, and I
believe it died.

-John O

fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?


no company needed. just mail the programmers.

http://www.ardour.org/support.php
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/contact

try having this level of support (contacting directly with the
programmers) with any propiertary application.

That process is only viable until the program becomes popular (definition:
lots of people use it). There's no way the programmers can handle phone
support and advance the program's capabilities, feature set, and deal with
bugs at the same time.

-John O

En/na John O ha escrit:
fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?


no company needed. just mail the programmers.

http://www.ardour.org/support.php
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/contact

try having this level of support (contacting directly with the
programmers) with any propiertary application.


That process is only viable until the program becomes popular (definition:
lots of people use it). There's no way the programmers can handle phone
support and advance the program's capabilities, feature set, and deal with
bugs at the same time.


I think PHP is more than popular (look at any PHP usage statistics) and
i had no trouble in contacting programmers when i needed it. support was
fast and spot on. the only thing you must make sure is to check all
knowledge (php bug tracker, google groups...) before sending nothing.
(just as you would do in any newsgroup before asking a question).

I don't think ardour, audacity or even protools will have ever a user
base as large as php, so your statement above falls apart.

even then, you can't compare a community of users who can have access to
the source code and the lastest cvs snapshots to a community of users of
closed propertary software.

In article writes:

Perhaps if you'd actually click the first link, you'd see how it answers
your question?

Are you so illiterate that you can't type an answer? Or are you
just trying to show your superiority here?

It's just like a Linux user to toss off an answer a question with a
link to click and go back to messing with his computer.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

I don't know, what does your client do when you are on hold waiting for
help?

This is not a problem. The programs that my clients see me using are
designed to be used by professionals, in their profession. Part of
that design is to have an adequate support structure. The only "wait"
support I tolerate is from Dell and AOL, and AOL is departing from my
life in a few days. I have pretty much decided that Dell help is
useles anyway. If I had a computer problem during a session, I'd
probably ask my client for help. He probably knows more about it than
I (or Dell tech support) anyway.

So? You haven't yet shown that Linux audio systems need more tech
support or that tech support is less available for them.

It's apparent from what the non-Linux users write here that some
support is needed for installation. While there might not be less tech
support available, the route to direct, knowlegable, prompt, and
interactive support isn't clear. Who do you call? When working through
a problem, I like to have someone on the phone so I can try what they
tell me and tell them what happens rather than get a page of text as a
message via e-mail or on a forum (or worse, be sent a link that may or
may not be relevant), work my way through that, and then have to go
back on line in order to get to the next step if it doesn't solve the
problem.

That statement is based on what I believe to be a false premise: That
Linux audio applications are unstable and need extra troubleshooting.
In my experience most don't need troubleshooting.

In my experience, most applications at all don't need troubleshooting
once you get them working and learn your way around - unless you do
something that affects them, either consciously or as a result of
changing something that you don't realize is related. Linux may be
better at isolating one application from another than Windows (so that
when you update an e-mail program it doesn't change audio settings
that affect your multitrack recording program) - I'll give you that if
it's indeed true. So troubelshooting may be more straightforward. Or
maybe not. You don't know until you've tried to solve someone's
problem and you can't see what they really have, or what's really
wrong.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Well, since he clipped out the question and changed it I don't think the
answer applies any longer.

===
Befo

I know it is used by pro studios.

Can you name one? Or two? Let us in rec.audio.pro judge how "pro" they
are.

=

Now:

I just asked you to name a couple of Linux audio workstation
applications that are used professionally.

I was trying to clarify what I was getting at. Sorry if you literal
guys think that I intentionally changed the question. However, feel
free to answer either one if you can.

Then again, they do mention a few applications that they use so I guess
the answer still applies even with the lowball tactics of the questioner.

Just mentioning a few applications is meaningless to me. Who are these
profeessionals and what applications are they using? And perhaps if
I'm permitted to expand my question: "What are they using them for?"

If you were truly trying to help me understand the scope of
penetration of Linux and its applications into the pro audio market,
you'd show me what you know and not just question my ability to ask a
question.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

This is a holdover from some 'guified' DOS apps and windows 286 and 3.11,
where the ALT and TAB keys had a very consistent function. One could easily
navigate the GUI of wondows and bundled applications without a mouse. This
has become increasingly less so.

Ah, for the days! Even in some applications where the pop-down menus
have a letter underlined indicating a keyboard shortcut, the route to
the shortcut is often indirect rather than the conventional Alt-*.

You don't have to know anything, and the theory is that you can figure it
out more easily.

Somehow I manage to do that, so I guess it's all OK. g


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?

no company needed. just mail the programmers.

Do they have nothing more to do than answer e-mail immediately, and
stick with the problem until it's solved? Or do you have to wait until
they get home from their day jobs or finish dinner or get back from
vacation?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Why would you want to do a disk defrag? Are you having bad performance
that you think a defrag would fix? Or is it just because you believe
that it's necessary from experience in the Windows world?

Speaking of which, do you do defrags on Windows? If so, then your claim
of no maintenance on Windows isn't really true.

I do disk defrags fairly regularly. I don't wait until I have a disk
problem to see if defragmenting will fix it (doubt it) nor do I find
that things work any better after defragmenting than before. I did,
back in the days of 10MB MDM disks with 3:1 or 4:1 interleaving, but
not today.

Just a habit, I guess, like changing the oil in the car. I could
probably run my car for 30,000 miles without changing the oil, then
trade it in, but I don't.

Eventually I discovered that the problem was that Windows comes by
default configured with a mode called Simple File Sharing turned on.
Even though it has nothing *whatsoever* to do with *sharing* files,
this turns off the tab in a file's Properties dialog that lets you
see who owns the files and what the permissions are. So, it is
impossible to fix permissions errors for *local* access of files,
and the solution is to changing some file sharing thingy that
logically *cannot* be related.

This is a problem with Windows, but the concept is probably shared
with other OSs as well. These are defaults set so that "normal" users
aren't confused by options that they don't understand, and don't
usually have a need to understand. What's unfortunate is that it's
difficult to find someone who actually knows what's happening here and
how to turn off whatever needs to be turned off so you can do what you
know must be done. It might be in one of those 2" thick "Windows
Secrets" aftermarket books but that's not what you want to read when
you have a screwy problem.

Remember the "Disk stuck in the PIO mode" problem I posted here a few
weeks back? I never would have stumbled on the (simple) solution
myself, or by digging through the support files on the Microsoft web
site. It was just luck that I asked in the right place at the right
time and got the answer from someone who knew what had happened and
why the simple (delete the device) solution would work.

Another good example is a time when I brought my computer over to
a friend's house and wanted to share the internet connection
between his and my machine. I didn't have a separate router but
I did bring an old 10 megabit hub with me, so I figured I'd use
the built-in Windows Internet Connection Sharing. After a great
amount of struggle to set it up, I eventually found that Windows
simply can't do NAT (network address translation) unless you have
*two* physical ethernet interfaces, even though every other operating
system I've ever tried it on can do NAT on the same interface by
giving the interface two different IP addresses at once.

I went through something similar when I got my laptop with WinXP,
which had Internet sharing. I tried to follow the instructions, but
the stuff I had to do was grayed out on the menus. My Internet
connection was with AOL on dial-up at the time, and neither Dell nor
AOL could explain what to do or why the necessary menu selections were
unavailable. I finally tried Microsoft's $30-a-call paid support and
in less than a minute's hold time, got someone who spoke good English
who walked me through the procedure and when we got to the place where
I could go no further, he had the good sense to do some research
rather than tell me to re-install Windows or AOL. He called me back 20
minutes later with the explanation - AOL's "network adapter" doesn't
have the hooks for Internet connection sharing (they wanted you to
sign up for their broadband service that they were pushing at the
time) and so sharing the AOL dial-up connection between two networked
computers would never work. Turns out that there was indeed an item
about this in the MS Support data base, it was just a matter of
knowing how to find it. The cool thing was that since Microsoft
couldn't solve my problem, they didn't charge me for the call.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article znr1117645948k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:

That's great - no user interaction with the operating system at all. How
does he even know that it's Linux? And why would he care? He's not buying
it, installing it, upgrading it, modifying it, or running applications of his choice
on it.

That is the way embedded systems are supposed to be.

Now if you had said RADAR (the multi-track stand-alone hard disk recorder)
I would have patted you on the head for at least being aware of an audio
application that I believe uses Linux, or at least some flavor of Unix. But
like TiVo, the user doesn't mess with it, and if there are any software updates,
they're provided directly from the unit's manufacturer.

Actually, RADAR uses BeOS inside. BeOS has an actual realtime kernal with
system calls that specify how much time you're willing to wait for a given
operation to complete. BeOS is a _lot_ more appropriate for an editing
and recording system than any Microsoft product or any Unix dialect (realtime
Unix kernals notwithstanding). But nobody much knows about it, since it
mostly gets used in embedded systems where the user never sees it much.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

support was
fast and spot on. the only thing you must make sure is to check all
knowledge (php bug tracker, google groups...) before sending nothing.
(just as you would do in any newsgroup before asking a question).

"Don't ask until you're smart enough."
The linux community is one of the few places I see a helluva lot of "if you
don't know, then you shouldn't be here." It's a poison that infects the
entire community.


I don't think ardour, audacity or even protools will have ever a user
base as large as php, so your statement above falls apart.

:-) I get the feeling you haven't worked in this area. You cannot have your
Big Thinkers doing support if you plan to make the program bigger/better.
And if your program doesn't get bigger/better, you have business problems
that make the rest irrelevant.

-John O
-whos grandma DID purchase and install XP all by herself. :-)

En/na Mike Rivers ha escrit:
In article writes:


fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?

no company needed. just mail the programmers.

Do they have nothing more to do than answer e-mail immediately, and
stick with the problem until it's solved? Or do you have to wait until
they get home from their day jobs or finish dinner or get back from
vacation?

in any case, that is more direct support than you will meet from any
propertary software company.

there's a lot of difference in telling you "wait for the next (paid)
version" (if they get to think that the bug/feature should be included)
to "there you go, download our latest CVS snapshot".

you certainly can't compare phone support with levels and levels of
burocracy to a community of users and programmers where everyone can
have access to the source code.

anyway, this thread should be about linux daw and it has come the time
when you can do serious audio work under linux. and the fact is that
many amateurs and some (little, but certainly some) professionals have
their studio on linux (there's lot of activity in linux-audio-users
forum where people get their work done, i personally lurk in the spanish
version lau-es).

there are some limitations though in linux audio apps, like some
hardware manufacturers that still don't get in their heads that they
should release their drivers for all platforms (even if they released
them closed-source, though i think all drivers should be open because
you are paying for the hardware and it's functionality). also there are
plugins and instruments missing, but in the linux world, time cures it all.

one thing i can't understant is why mac osx apps are not ported to linux
as the architechture is nearly the same... there's a general tendecy of
software manufacturers thinking that they can't release under linux
because then they should open their source, when that's not real. there
are many closed and comercial applications on linux. being the OS free
(as in *freedom* of speech) does not mean that all apps MUST be also
free. I think lots of people would migrate to linux if a software like
logic was ported... they would go for a free and stable OS. for example
after some years without it, now we have again adobe acrobat reader
under linux (i still use the /libre/ alternatives though, as acrobat is
*free* as in free beer but not *free* as in freedom of speech).

openoffice, gimp, are great examples of where opensource applications
can get, and it's a guide to what can also be done in the audio area.

nowadays i only use linux desktops, both at home and at work (the only
time i get to use a windows machine is when i need to check something
working on exploder). and, i work, i don't waste my time tweaking,
because there is nothing to tweak. i use mandriva which is one of the
most straight-foward distributions, withs guis for all the configurable
things. install in less than half an hour, and you can begin working
with apps of all flavors. (with windows, install in half an hour but you
still have to install appart your office suite, your browsers, unzipping
utilities, firewalls, antivirus etc...)

getting again on topic, and for the OP, there is another daw software
being developed apart from ardour, still on it's firsts steps but looks
very promising:

http://bloodshed.net/wired/?sid=5

En/na John O ha escrit:
support was
fast and spot on. the only thing you must make sure is to check all
knowledge (php bug tracker, google groups...) before sending nothing.
(just as you would do in any newsgroup before asking a question).


"Don't ask until you're smart enough."
The linux community is one of the few places I see a helluva lot of "if you
don't know, then you shouldn't be here." It's a poison that infects the
entire community.


searching for the answer before posting is common sense. you don't ask
questions that are written on a FAQ. first you read that FAQ. and, if
you get to ask it, you can find some obtuse jerk who will tell you that,
but surely you will find a helping hand. at least in my experience in
alt.os.linux.mandrake which is the linux newsgroup where read and
contribute.

BTW, i've seen people ditched on RAP for a newbie or amateurish post.

"Logan Shaw" wrote:

Why would you want to do a disk defrag? Are you having bad
performance that you think a defrag would fix? Or is it just because
you believe that it's necessary from experience in the Windows world?

Some of each. The machine (an 800-something G4) isn't keeping up with
the work, so I thought it might be that the big ol' video files were
getting splattered around the drive. I didn't know OSX drives were
different.



Speaking of which, do you do defrags on Windows? If so, then your
claim of no maintenance on Windows isn't really true.

Fair enough. I guess I figured oil changes weren't maintenance, the way
replacing ball joints would be. I guess it would be more accurate to
say I haven't had to do any "repairs."



For the record (and we are both speaking anecdotally), I have been
using OS X for about 2.5 years, and so far I can only recall one time
it crashed, and that was obviously due to a defective video card

This is where our experiences differ. Ours goes south a couple times a
week for no apparent reason. We've replaced the 001 card, the video
card and the RAM. It just seems to get confused from time to time and
up pops the grey screen.

I also have trouble finding my way around OSX. For example,
occasionally someone will plug in a USB flash drive that the Mac simply
doesn't acknowledge as present at all. Finding my way to the utility
that lets me reformat the thing befuddles me every time.

There are other examples too, which I realize all come down to
experience and familiarity. The point is that, for me, finding my way
around the Windows interface doesn't usually result in me kicking the
machine, whereas I can't seem to find my way around the Mac with a map,
a Saint Bernard and two Sherpa guides. My brain doesn't seem to be
tuned to the same frequency as the Mac UI. Maybe the interface is fine
but the user is defective. Unfortunately, replacing the user is not a
practical option, so I've chosen a different OS instead.



My favorite example is (snip examples of how Windows was a PITA)

It's that kind of stupidity that makes Windows hard to live with
for me.

I'd be annoyed by those situations too. Fortunately, I've not had any
similar experiences in recent memory.

I share an internet connection between machines over a wireless network,
and it works. I didn't try doing anything out of the ordinary with it
though. I just put an adaptor in each machine, set the security
settings on the router and fired it up.

The only hassle I've had with it was trying to add an Apple Express for
beaming iTunes into the living room stereo. That motherf just wouldn't
work AT ALL. It took a firmware update from Apple and installing a new
configuration app to make it work. That wasn't a Windows issue though,
it was an Apple problem.

I wonder if it's fair to say that what you're doing with the machine
falls outside the "typical" users expectations whereas I'm not trying to
do some of the more esoteric things you want to accomplish?

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

There are tons of linux computers in the embedded world, running tons of
specialized apps. For a perfect example, see TiVo.

That's great - no user interaction with the operating system at all.

Not exactly true. There is no NECESSARY user interaction with the operating
system - there certainly can be user interaction with the OS.

My main point anyway was just disagreement with your statements:

"There aren't many computers running Linux, and most that are are either
in network/server applications or are fodder for experimenters."

The embedded world makes this demonstrably untrue.

and

" Without a strong OS support, only experimenters have the incentive
to develop special purpose applications, and they don't know when
they're finished. There's no potential for a commercial developer
here because Linux people aren't accustomed to paying for their
software (at least partly because they're part of the developoment
team."

TiVo makes this demonstrably untrue.

How
does he even know that it's Linux? And why would he care? He's not buying
it, installing it, upgrading it, modifying it, or running applications of his choice
on it.

That changes not a whit the fact that linux has potential for commercial
development and is used in a huge number of systems outside networ servers
and experimenters.

--
Aaron

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:

But then, I'd require folks to learn how to change their oil
before they are allowed to get a driver's license.

Yep... and change a flat also.

--
Aaron

Jim Richardson wrote:

So when you upgrade yoru system, with that one click you mention, it
upgrades the browser, OE, your DAW stuff, and any and everything else on
the machine?

No , only the stuff I want it to automatically.


*could* you update any and everything from one simple click in that
manner. Or are there apps that you have to hunt the upgrades down, and
apply manually?

First, this has really diverted from the topic and just turned into
arguments about things that have no meaning.

Second, to be fair, though you can update a LOT of your system with one
click or command on Linux, like 99% of it, there is still that 1%+ that
you update by hand because you want something more up to date or the
distribution never packaged the program. Like Windows, you can only
update what comes with the system...but in Linux this is a LOT.

In many cases a kernel upgrade isn't a simple button click either.
With regard to audio, until recently it had to be patched and compiled.
Some still choose to apply the extra low-latency patches but now that
the RT-Limits has been included in the kernel you just need to
upgrade...afaik you still have to manually patch and compile PAM to use
this new API so that you can allow users to run realtime applications.

Some would say the above is one of Linux's failings, I think it is one
of its strengths. See for a LONG time Linus wouldn't accept the
low-latency patches and wasn't giving the audio community much of an
ear. So they did it themselves. Users then have the ability to alter
the system at a fundamental level to get what they need and they are
provided the tools to do this fairly easily. You can't do that with
any of the closed source/proprietery systems like Windows or Mac.

Very soon PAM will be altered to use the new API and you will no longer
need to patch anything to get a realtime, low-latency OS. This is very
important for audio users.

Noah Roberts wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote:

Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what
is being altered in their boxes.


That is rich. Tell me what registry alterations occurred in your last
install shield install then.

And do you really think users wouldn't like a button that said, "Upgrade
everything," on their computer? Well, I guess that is an opinion. On
the other hand, I have extensive experience with users and have to say I
think you are quite wrong. In fact I bet they would prefer it didn't
even ask so long as it never broke anything.


Aye, there's the rub. Automagically updating complex general purpose
operating systems on diverse hardware can often go wrong. Sometimes it
can go very, very wrong. I've lost (as in 'reformat and start over') at
least one each of several *nix variants -- along with the multitude of
Win* and MacOS* meltdowns over the years. It's just part of the landscape.

Linønut wrote:
poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:


I think Linux is good for several things:
- servers,
- embedded systems, eg., kiosks that can use mozilla as an interface
- research machines, eg., graphics, scientific computation, etc

But I agree, Linux is not great for end-user application software. For audio
work Audacity just does not compare to Audition. Nowhere near as nice.

I should mention that Linux can be practical for applications, but only if a
person is *already familiar with linux*, like for one of the above uses...


you guys really aren't talking about Linux, so much as vendor
support for Linux. Right now, Bill Gates has the multimedia vendors
firmly in his embrace.


And there's the real issue. Users use applications. Give them the
right application, easy to use and dead reliable -- and 95+% of them
could care less what lies underneath it.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"perso" wrote:

but i'm sure Windows won't be future of DAW applications.
for toys ok ... but not for pros applis.

Bzzt. You lose. I make my living with Pro Tools on a Windows machine.

With that particular application it's actually more stable than our Mac.

Stability in a computer system has virtually nothing to with the OS.

No, stability is the main purpose of the OS. The OS exists to keep all
of the applications playing well together.

This ignores major sources of instability - external factors (virii etc.),
hardware (PCI bus mastering anyone?), CPU errata or undefined usages, and
software errata.

If the OS has to catch it, the system isn't stable.

--
Aaron

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

Perhaps if you'd actually click the first link, you'd see how it answers
your question?

Are you so illiterate that you can't type an answer? Or are you
just trying to show your superiority here?

It's just like a Linux user to toss off an answer a question with a
link to click and go back to messing with his computer.

That link was the single most direct and to the point answer to your
'question'. You asked for the name of a pro studio using linux, I gave
you a link their website. There is no more direct answer than that.
You ARE just being stupid now.

Here is that link again:
http://www.multitrack.us/

The link to an e-book on using Linux in the pro field that they are
writing:
http://209.134.141.117/jam/book1.htm

I have answered your question for the second time now.

Linønut wrote:
Bob Cain wrote:

Believe it or not, experienced management with teeth
serves an important purpose.


So does a community of volunteers.


Agreed, but you seem to be adopting an "authority sucks" posture.

Whatever happened to "question authority?" Good management (admittedly
damn difficult to find & keep) stands up to it.

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Noah Roberts wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote:

Most users prefer a little more control and knowledge about exact what
is being altered in their boxes.


That is rich. Tell me what registry alterations occurred in your last
install shield install then.

And do you really think users wouldn't like a button that said, "Upgrade
everything," on their computer? Well, I guess that is an opinion. On
the other hand, I have extensive experience with users and have to say I
think you are quite wrong. In fact I bet they would prefer it didn't
even ask so long as it never broke anything.


Aye, there's the rub. Automagically updating complex general purpose
operating systems on diverse hardware can often go wrong. Sometimes it
can go very, very wrong. I've lost (as in 'reformat and start over') at
least one each of several *nix variants -- along with the multitude of
Win* and MacOS* meltdowns over the years. It's just part of the landscape.

And sometimes upgrading /introduces/ bugs instead of solving them.
This happens everywhere also, it is due to the fact that all systems
are designed and built by human beings...or robots built by human
beings. I only upgrade when there is a problem with what I have or new
features I want. I frequent security sites and pay attention and only
update those programs that need updating. Today I updated binutils on
a webserver. I never use the upgrade all button...BUT, the standard
user would LOVE such a thing. They don't want to watch security
bullitins or even read the release notes of the 'fix' they are
applying.

If it breaks something they will throw a fit, call every tech support
and expert they communicate with a stupid asshole, and press the button
next time.

alex bazan wrote:
En/na another viewer ha escrit:

In article ,
Arkady Duntov wrote:


fine, what company does the support for Audacity or Ardour ?


no company needed. just mail the programmers.

http://www.ardour.org/support.php
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/contact

try having this level of support (contacting directly with the
programmers) with any propiertary application.


Some of us regularly experience this on commercial audio applications
and on hardware/drivers we use with them. The companies that provide
this kind of support have fierce customer loyalty, BTW.

I also use freeware, shareware, and open source applications -- both for
audio and for other tasks. The applications that work and are well
supported -- whatever their source code policy and choice of OS may be
-- are the ones the I choose to get my work done.