"John" wrote:

[...] Hell, name one number one album in any
genre using any Linux based system as it's main tool.
Not ready for prime time, is it....?


I've only been participating in r.a.p. for about eight years or so, yet
I seem to recall threads with themes like "name even ONE top-ten record
done exclusively in Pro Tools!" Now there's probably as many that are
as aren't.

I'm not saying a Linux app is likely to have the same success, but you
never know... at least it's something the "Faithful" can shoot for.

--
"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)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
"John" wrote:

[...] Hell, name one number one album in any
genre using any Linux based system as it's main tool.
Not ready for prime time, is it....?



I've only been participating in r.a.p. for about eight years or so, yet
I seem to recall threads with themes like "name even ONE top-ten record
done exclusively in Pro Tools!" Now there's probably as many that are
as aren't.

Exactly. Really the only thing not finding a big time studio or album
made with Linux tools means is either we don't know what all the big
time studios use or are trying (I couldn't tell you what most of the
albums I listen to where made with if my life depended on it), or that
nobody that has tried it was a big time studio who probably want to
stick to what they have until the little guys test it out better.

Linux audio is new in comparison to much else. Certainly it can improve
in some areas because it is improving at an incredible rate that even
amazes me who has YEARS of experience with this OS, and because the more
it is used the more it will change and adapt. This is all true.

However, the original poster (the one pre-crosspost that I only saw
through replies) indicated they wanted to use Linux in a home studio.
Well, I do use Linux in a home studio and it works for me. What I can
do others can do. It is also used by at least *some* pro studios and
musicians. Whether the other pros want to look at these ones and say,
"Well they are small time and don't count," or not makes no difference
and frankly just sounds snobbish and petty (besides the fact that most
of what comes out of the big time studios these days is garbage - its
the small time and ameteur that is the good stuff). A LOT of "serious"
work is done in Linux audio even if a lot more is done elsewhere.

So when I read these "pros" bashing Linux for use in a home studio I am
frankly appalled. First off they know nothing about Linux because their
time and energy has been devoted to a different set of tools. Being an
expert in that set of tools is great, and unless you become dissatisfied
with them for some reason (as Mirror Image apparently did) there is 0
reason to switch (less even), but that gives you no reason or
credibility when talking bad about systems you don't know and
recommending people to stay away from them. Then you have gone from
someone with experience worth talking to and changed into an idiot who
is not.

There are many reasons to choose Linux to do your work. Some are
technical, some are monetary, some are social in nature. Linux can, and
for some people does, make a fine DAW among other things it can do for
you. All other nonsense asside.

wrote:

I sitll plan on building another linux machine eventually, putting a
Zefiro card in it and using it for transferring audio from other media
and possibly burning a cd, but I decided that could wait, just go buy
a Masterlink instead. I'm hnot that interested in gui editing and cut
and paste performance editing.

There is at least some command line audio tools. There are some blind
users on the linux-audio list I think, if I am remembering conversations
correctly, and there has been some mention of this.

Noah Roberts wrote:
S.Heenan wrote:

Then read up on something you know nothing about; the Windows registry.


Heh, talk about people who like to tweak with their computer instead of
getting work done. There isn't anything more tweakish than the Windows
registry.

no, the Windows registry is the ******* son of a thousand maniacs.

--
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Linux is not /user-friendly/. It *is* user-friendly. It is not
ignorant-friendly, nor is it idiot-friendly.

Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

This is a battle of wits, and it is clear you are unarmed.

-end sig-

Studio to Go!
http://www.ferventsoftware.com/

Found this while doing some research on this subject

Bascially, a commercial linux install (or run from CD) with a lot of the
linux audio software programs that has been mentioned. (Also, there are
similar non-commercial linux projects such as the AGNULA project -
http://www.agnula.org/ - refer to this Sound On Sound article for an
overview of the AGNULA project - http://tinyurl.com/akklh, also SOS article
on Studio to Go! - http://tinyurl.com/9zw7m)

"Studio..to go! is a complete music production environment on a single CD.
What's truly remarkable is you don't have to install any software before you
start using it!

Put the CD in the drive, reboot your computer and get dropped into a
complete music production environment including sequencer, MIDI and Audio
editors, scoring support, soft synths, drum machines, CD ripping and burning
and mastering software. You can use your existing VST plugins and VST
instruments and any Soundfonts with the Studio..to go! software immediately.
When you're done recording you can save your compositions to a USB key and
take them and your software away with you to use on another computer!"

Current pricing: GBP 49.99 (USD 90.85) OR GBP 64.99 (USD 118.11) with 128 MB
USB Memory Stick

System Hardware Requirements

Processor Type: Intel/AMD 32-bit or AMD64 in 32-bit mode

Processor Speed: 800MHz minimum; 1.2GHz recommended
RAM: 256MB minimum; 512MB recommended

Hard Disk: None to run from CD.
Minimum 2GB if you wish to install the system to hard disk.

Hardware Supported URL
http://tinyurl.com/dguys

Bundled Software

Sequencing and Scoring

* Rosegarden MUSIC 1.0.1 (Fervent version) - Audio and MIDI sequencer and
score editor.
* LilyPond 2.2.6 - Advanced score typesetting for creating beautiful
notation output.

Infrastructure

* Linux 2.6.9 kernel with additional low-latency patches and Realtime LSM
* ALSA Sound Drivers 1.0.8
* JACK Audio infrastructure 0.99.24
* KDE 3.3.1

Audio and MIDI Controls

* Mixers: QAMix 0.0.7, HDSPMixer 1.6, envy24control 0.5.0
* QJackCtl 0.2.12
* Vkeybd

Audio Recording and Editing

* Audacity 1.2.2 (Fervent build with JACK support)
* Rezound 0.10.0beta
* Sweep 0.8.1 (plus jackasyn for JACK support)
* Ardour 0.9beta19
* JAMin 0.9.0
* JACK Time Machine 0.2.5

CD and Media Utilities

* K3b 0.11.16
* KAudioCreator 1.10
* XMMS 1.2.10 plus JACK output plugin

Effects

* Creox 0.2.2rc2
* JACK Rack 1.4.3
* FreqTweak 0.6.1
* QMidiArp 0.0.2

Synths

* FluidSynth-DSSI from DSSI 0.9 with FluidSynth 1.0.4
* QSynth 0.2.1
* TiMidity++ 2.13.2 with freepats 20040611
* Hydrogen 0.9.0 including 11 additional drumkits
* Hexter DX7 Modeling Synth 0.5.7
* Aeolus 0.2.1 (Fervent build)
* ALSA Modular Synth 1.8.6 (Fervent build)
* ZynAddSubFX 1.4.3

Meters

* Meterbridge 0.9.2

Native plugins

* CAPS, TAP, SWH, CMT, REV, PVOC, BLOP LADSPA plugin sets
* 298 LADSPA plugins total, all categorised.
* Hexter, FluidSynth, XSynth and mono and stereo sampler DSSI plugins.

VST plugins Elogoxa CosmoGirl2K; NovaKill FEARkILLER; DestroyFX Geometer,
Scrubby, Skidder, Transverb. VSTs are supported as plugins in Rosegarden,
and as standalone applications anywhere in the JACK processing graph.

Also included are web browser, email client, PDF viewer and other software
including internet/network connection software.

David
--
From David Troxell - Product Scope 32 PRO - Encourager Software
Email -
Profile Exchanges - PRO Music USB-Firewire, Home Theater, Search Engine
http://www.encouragersoftware.com/pr...OMusicUSB.html

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:17:36 -0500,
another viewer wrote:
In article ,
Jim Richardson wrote:

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 12:23:35 -0500,
another viewer wrote:
In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

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.


This facility doesn't really meet the criteria of being a pro studio,
sorry. Looking at the client list it's more of a low end demo shop.
Beyond that, naming just one user is pretty lame if you want to show
industry wide support and acceptance for any sort of product.



- From the site http://www.multitrack.us/

"Mirror Image Recording Studios was founded by Bill Bailey, Dana Bailey
and Ron Parker in 1983. We've recorded around four hundred clients in
the last decade alone, and have probably produced over two hundred
albums since we got started."



"An independent studio based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mirror Image
features four acoustically designed and tuned studio areas - two live
rooms, one control room for tracking and another dedicated room for
mastering. The building also has a preproduction area and living
accommodation for visting musicians."


sounds like a pro studio to me. Why do you feel they aren't a pro
studio? does every pro studio have to be the size of Skywalker Sound or
Columbia?

Nope, but having some recognizable clients or producers or finished
product does establish a level of credibility not present there.



So you are claiming that unless a studio serves clients that *you*
recognize, they aren't a "pro" studio?

Is your auto mechanic not a pro because he doesn't have any famous
clients?








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

an unfinished and fairly mediocre tome as it presently reads. the
copyright says 2003, do they plan on finishing it any time soon ? This
also reflects a half-way attitude by the operators. BTW, "Jam" is a
copyright protected name for a Roxio product that predates what they are
talking about.

Everyone seems to be avoiding answering this question.




Who cares? Does it have any relevence to their professionalism as an
audio studio?

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

iD8DBQFCoCk/d90bcYOAWPYRAg7MAKCJ6YQeGbhRA6CM3ZKS3TdudU6XwQCfZN th
ZOMYbGdvq9UflN/FyvU0ixA=
=NwrF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life is too short to be taken seriously.
-- Oscar Wilde

In article writes:

I probably should have said 'buy a mac and be done with it for five years'
but nobody wants to hear it.

Why not? You can run Linux on a Mac, can't you?

--
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:

Try thinking for a moment. Someone asked for examples of professionals
using Linux in their studios. That link is a link to such a studio. The
link is a *direct* answer to the question that was asked.

A link is not an answer to a question. It may be a route to an answer,
but it means that:

(1) I have to do further research to find the answer to what I
intended to be a simple question.
(2) I have no clue as to credibility of the information I'll find at
the link.
(3) The one posting the link may not have any idea what it contains,
or of its relevance (which became apparent once I read about the
studio). All he knew was that this was a studio and they had a
Linux system with an audio application.

Another useless reply with no useful information. Who needs it?



--
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

Then read up on something you know nothing about; the Windows registry.


Right, tell me all about how reliable the registry scheme is.


In 2k and XP, the damn thing is fairly hard to break. One of my side
activities involves doing just that, and today's Windows makes it very hard
to bust the registry. The guy in my company who supports our 45 PCs reports
to me...and we have not had a single registry-related failure since we left
Win 95 behind.

---just another calibration point

-John O

Heh, talk about people who like to tweak with their computer instead of
getting work done. There isn't anything more tweakish than the Windows
registry.

no, the Windows registry is the ******* son of a thousand maniacs.


LOL, I'll give you that. It's a mess, but so what? It works.

-John O

"S.Heenan" wrote in message
news:QPHne.1543511$8l.1034007@pd7tw1no...
Roger wrote:

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.

There is no package management on Windows, beyond the
OS. period
and the
very weak and prone to breakage registry.



Try posting with your sig last, not first.

Then read up on something you know nothing about; the
Windows
registry.


Right, tell me all about how reliable the registry scheme
is.

In the NT-based systems, the registry has been almost
perfectly reliable.

IME virtually all of the so-called registry errors in the
Win9x systems were due to the flakiness of the underlying
OS. You can't build on sand and expect the house to stand in
a storm.

Jim wrote:
Noah Roberts wrote:
S.Heenan wrote:

Then read up on something you know nothing about; the
Windows
registry.

Heh, talk about people who like to tweak with their
computer instead
of getting work done. There isn't anything more tweakish
than the
Windows registry.

Except the alternatives, which many of us greybeards
suffered with before the NT registry showed up in 1993 or
so.

no, the Windows registry is the ******* son of a thousand
maniacs.

Meaning exactly what?

In the reliable MS OSs. e.g. the ones based on NT, the basic
registry subsystem is very reliable and predictable.

The basic concept of having the OS provide a global
parameter-storage facility is a very good one. The NT
implementation seems to be very robust and flexible with
decent performance.

Any number of people who were interested in OS architecture
in the 70s and 80s saw the need for this kind of an OS
service as parameter storage needs mushroomed. If you hate
the registry, perhaps you need more time with the
alternatives, such as random individual parameter files.

In article znr1117760943k@trad, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
Try thinking for a moment. Someone asked for examples of professionals
using Linux in their studios. That link is a link to such a studio. The
link is a *direct* answer to the question that was asked.

A link is not an answer to a question. It may be a route to an answer,
but it means that:

(1) I have to do further research to find the answer to what I
intended to be a simple question.
(2) I have no clue as to credibility of the information I'll find at
the link.
(3) The one posting the link may not have any idea what it contains,
or of its relevance (which became apparent once I read about the
studio). All he knew was that this was a studio and they had a
Linux system with an audio application.

Another useless reply with no useful information. Who needs it?

OK, let's think about this for a moment. You wanted him to name pros
using Linux. How would you suggest that be answered? Unless his answer
was going to be a studio that you were already familiar with, to an
extent that you would already know they used Linux, you would end up
needing to go to their web site to see if that was satisfactory answer.

Would you have been happier if he had just said "Mirror Image Studios in
Minneapolis", and left it to you to find the link?

--
--Tim Smith

Noah Roberts wrote:

Dumbass.

Five facilities...

A pro is asking you, and your answer?

--
ha

In article ZyRne.30743$on1.29274@clgrps13,
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote:

"John" wrote:

[...] Hell, name one number one album in any
genre using any Linux based system as it's main tool.
Not ready for prime time, is it....?


I've only been participating in r.a.p. for about eight years or so, yet
I seem to recall threads with themes like "name even ONE top-ten record
done exclusively in Pro Tools!" Now there's probably as many that are
as aren't.

I'm not saying a Linux app is likely to have the same success, but you
never know... at least it's something the "Faithful" can shoot for.

The point is the high end facilities and producers that actually push
the technological envelope, not the home or low end studios. Lucas
developed the SoundDroid and EditDroid over 25 years ago. From those
systems came the follow-on Sonic editors and the rest of the audio
editing systems, and the Avid editors and the rest of the picture edit
systems. It's the custom built high end needs that push the industry
forward in technology, not the low end market. For someone to be
crowing over a system then barely delivers what has been standard fare
elsewhere for quite a number of years is a bit silly.

The development of the Lucas Droids, Neve and SSL consoles,
SoundStream, 3M and Sony digital recording systems, and the basic signal
processors developed in the 1950s and 1960s that are de facto standards
in studios today are all the product of high end custom research and
design of the time, supported and used first by high end facilities.
Over the years, that technology filters down the chain, but when
significant new tech shows up in the entertainment industries, you will
see it first in major productions, not in demo rooms. That is why I
would ask where's the significant impact of linux audio technology as
reflected in major productions. The fact is, the linux systems lag the
market rather than lead the market and are merely imitating what is
already out there. Some true believers have a hard time recognizing
that. However, even in the single example studio provided by the true
believers, it was an afterthought in the equipment listings, preceded by
more standard and ordinary fare.

As for a home studio, the issues of ease of compatability with the
outside world and lack of an upgrade path will limit the usefulness of
any linux system as compared to more conventional fare. That's the
current reality of the production world and wishful thinking won't
change that. If and when that changes and those systems start doing
something above and beyond the ordinary, they will certainly win the
embrace of professionals looking for that extra edge, but not before
then.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

In article rochrist@REMOVETOEMAIL writes:

I used to have a fair amount of respect for you. That respect is diminishing
of late.

Thank you. I've never heard of you so I don't have any reason to
respect you or not, or to care about what you think of me. But you
have a point, you really should make it, and not make your discussant
decide what your point is.



--
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 never said anything besides the fact that they are a pro studio.

Perhaps "pro studio" is the wrong term for what it is that we're
looking for. We're looking for a blessing from someone (like me, so
I've been told) who's well respected in the field of audio recording.
This studio that's been singled out for the discussion here doesn't
fit that model, so as far as we're concerned, it's just someone who
decided to use a Linux system in his business.

I speak very highly of the Nomad Jukebox 3 as a portable recorder, and
people believe me when I say that it does a good job. But I'm also
quick to point out what I feel are its deficiencies (and risks) so
that another can make an intelligent decision about using it himself.

I don't see both sides of the Linux audio story yet. Why don't one of
you guys write an article in Mix about it? They pay well, and I'm sure
that if it was well balanced and well researched, it would be well
received. You could look through back issues, find the names of
engineers and producers who have been featured in articles in the past
ten years or so, and ask them what they think of using a Linux based
system in their daily work.



--
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:

However, the original poster (the one pre-crosspost that I only saw
through replies) indicated they wanted to use Linux in a home studio.

Thanks for reminding us what this is all about. We need that every few
days when a discussion gets into zealot territory.

In a home studio, he can use whatever he wants. I think that the gist
of the nays was not that it's no good, but that there are a limited
number of applications available. If he likes what he can find and get
working fairly efficiently, that's fine. But the nice thing about the
mainstream OSs is that one can obtain demo versions of various
programs and choose the one that that appeals for whatever reasons it
does - features, configurability, compatability, reputation of the
manufacturer, etc.

So when I read these "pros" bashing Linux for use in a home studio I am
frankly appalled.

Mostly we're bashing the people who come here with no justification
other than "I use it, it works for me."

There are many reasons to choose Linux to do your work. Some are
technical, some are monetary, some are social in nature. Linux can, and
for some people does, make a fine DAW among other things it can do for
you. All other nonsense asside.

There are also many reasons to choose another OS on which to base your
system. It's really all about the applications rather than the OS. If
someone came along with something else to say about Ardour than "It's
almost as good as ProTools" we might be more receptive to a
discussion.



--
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:

Actually the PCDAW world was all keen for BeE to suceed, but BE gave up and
went 'embedded' only. For some reason these same enthusiastic people are not
inspired by Linux, so it's not that we have closed minds.

Not the whole world, and not that keen, but there was some interest.
The potential was good because BeOS was, from the get-go, designed with
real time multimedia support in mind. But by the time it was close to
ready, both Mac OS and Windows were well established as "the computer
that people already have." This is a very powerful force in marketing.

Even though we all know in our hearts that it's better to dedicate a
computer to our audio applications (in which case it doesn't matter
what OS is under the hood) there's a big selling point to advertising
a "Complete Recording Studio" that doesn't include the cost of a
computer and operating system. If Be really took off, there'd be a
word processor, web browser, spreadsheet, media player, etc. for it
and people could use a single Be computer for all their work, but
those things are slow-coming.

I'm surprised that TiVo went with Linux (if this is actually true)
rather than BeOS. Maybe it was simply because of the difference in
cost of licensing, given that development costs would be roughly the
same either way.


--
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:

Whatever - but they are not a typical low, mid, or high-end studio. They
are the exception, and they are not as prominent or pre-eminent as you seem
to believe.

I suppose that to a Linux advocate, they're pre-eminent. They're using
a Linux system for an audio application, and they have "Studios" in
their name.



--
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 ,
Jim Richardson wrote:

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

an unfinished and fairly mediocre tome as it presently reads. the
copyright says 2003, do they plan on finishing it any time soon ? This
also reflects a half-way attitude by the operators. BTW, "Jam" is a
copyright protected name for a Roxio product that predates what they are
talking about.

Everyone seems to be avoiding answering this question.




Who cares? Does it have any relevence to their professionalism as an
audio studio?

Yes, it does. Putting up half finished work from 2003 is very telling.

The folks behind the linux Jam application are either ignorant of a long
standing and widely used audio product from Roxio or are blatantly
ignoring the Roxio copyright. Neither bodes well for the linux folks.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

In article ,
Jim Richardson wrote:

Is your auto mechanic not a pro because he doesn't have any famous
clients?

he does work on vehicles people recognize and he has a well equipped
shop, so yes, he is a professional and not a shade tree backyard wrench.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

John O poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Heh, talk about people who like to tweak with their computer instead of
getting work done. There isn't anything more tweakish than the Windows
registry.

no, the Windows registry is the ******* son of a thousand maniacs.

LOL, I'll give you that. It's a mess, but so what? It works.

It may work for the OS, but it is sure hell on the poor admin
dude/dudette.

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

Arny Krueger poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Except the alternatives, which many of us greybeards suffered with
before the NT registry showed up in 1993 or so.

I'd rather suffer the UNIX alternative than the Registry, personally.

The basic concept of having the OS provide a global
parameter-storage facility is a very good one. The NT
implementation seems to be very robust and flexible with
decent performance.

Seems true.

Any number of people who were interested in OS architecture
in the 70s and 80s saw the need for this kind of an OS
service as parameter storage needs mushroomed. If you hate
the registry, perhaps you need more time with the
alternatives, such as random individual parameter files.

These parameter files aren't "random". And they are MUCH easier for
humans to edit.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
Jim wrote:

Noah Roberts wrote:

S.Heenan wrote:


Then read up on something you know nothing about; the

Windows

registry.


Heh, talk about people who like to tweak with their

computer instead

of getting work done. There isn't anything more tweakish

than the

Windows registry.


Except the alternatives, which many of us greybeards
suffered with before the NT registry showed up in 1993 or
so.


no, the Windows registry is the ******* son of a thousand

maniacs.

Meaning exactly what?

In the reliable MS OSs. e.g. the ones based on NT, the basic
registry subsystem is very reliable and predictable.

The basic concept of having the OS provide a global
parameter-storage facility is a very good one. The NT
implementation seems to be very robust and flexible with
decent performance.

Any number of people who were interested in OS architecture
in the 70s and 80s saw the need for this kind of an OS
service as parameter storage needs mushroomed. If you hate
the registry, perhaps you need more time with the
alternatives, such as random individual parameter files.


I'd much rather have random individual parameter files, at least then if
you accidentally hose those you're not hosing the entire rest of the system.

--
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of
the opinions of its author. You decide.
Linux is not /user-friendly/. It *is* user-friendly. It is not
ignorant-friendly, nor is it idiot-friendly.

Web: http://www.dotware.co.uk
http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

This is a battle of wits, and it is clear you are unarmed.

-end sig-

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117799063k@trad...

In article rochrist@REMOVETOEMAIL writes:

I used to have a fair amount of respect for you. That respect is
diminishing
of late.

Thank you. I've never heard of you so I don't have any reason to
respect you or not, or to care about what you think of me. But you
have a point, you really should make it, and not make your discussant
decide what your point is.


My point is that you don't have to have such an attitude. I never did
anything to you, or treated you rudely. Apparently, something about this
Linux thing has got a major hair across your ass.

En/na Roger Christie rochrist@ ha escrit:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117799063k@trad...

In article rochrist@REMOVETOEMAIL writes:


I used to have a fair amount of respect for you. That respect is

diminishing

of late.

Thank you. I've never heard of you so I don't have any reason to
respect you or not, or to care about what you think of me. But you
have a point, you really should make it, and not make your discussant
decide what your point is.



My point is that you don't have to have such an attitude. I never did
anything to you, or treated you rudely. Apparently, something about this
Linux thing has got a major hair across your ass.



probably it's digidesign auctions what's across his ass


P.S: sorry for getting into troll mode, there was a little devil telling
me to say that one :P :P :P

In article writes:

OK, let's think about this for a moment. You wanted him to name pros
using Linux. How would you suggest that be answered?

I apologize for using the term "pro" if indeed it was I who actually
made exactly that request. What I was looking for was the names of
engineers who are well known in the popular side of the industry. I
don't deny that a guy working with his Ardour system in a spare
bedroom producing jingles for the local radio station isn't a "pro." I
was looking for the names that we read over and over in Mix Magazine.
While I share little in common with them, their regular use of a
product suggests a level of reliability and usefulness that's
desirable for any level of user.

So who is there that I, in my 40 or more years working in audio, might
I have heard of who's using a Linux-based system as part of his
"professional" suite of equipment?

Would you have been happier if he had just said "Mirror Image Studios in
Minneapolis", and left it to you to find the link?

Actually, yes. That would have answered my question. I probably
wouldn't have bothered looking up the link because this studio and the
people who work there aren't really the endorsement that I'm looking
for. I know that I'm setting a high standard here, but you have to
start somewhere.



--
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

John wrote:


As for a home studio, the issues of ease of compatability with the
outside world and lack of an upgrade path will limit the usefulness of
any linux system as compared to more conventional fare.

I have been hearing these arguments since I started using Linux 10
years ago. It is always, "Linux has no apps," "Linux is not
compatible," "Linux is not..." Since that time I have watched it grow
and embed itself, sometimes downright take over, in every market it
ever enters. The arguments stay the same and time always shows them to
be the nonsense they really are. Big wigs are constantly comming down
on Linux, now they all want a piece. It will be the same with audio.

I have a hard time giving your statements about upgrade path and
compatability any credence since you don't know anything about the
system in question. All you have shown is that you know how to use the
tools you ARE familiar with and have been lucky in who your customers
are. To really speak on Linux you have to have used it, for audio
work, for more than 10 minutes.

I work with fellow musicians who use pro-tools, cubebase, guitartracks,
etc... It doesn't matter what tools we use, we can all communicate
very effectively.

Mike Rivers wrote:
I
don't deny that a guy working with his Ardour system in a spare
bedroom producing jingles for the local radio station isn't a "pro."

Lot long at all actually. Pretty sad.

I'm like MR. Dorsey, I'm not a computer fan for audio work in the
first place. I cut my teeth back in the analog tape days and would
still just rather mount a damned reel of tape and get some work done
than putz with a computer. I"ll give it another look I think.

I, too, come from the analog tape days (on a hobbyist level with my old
Fostex R8) and look at computer based recording as a godsend. I used to HATE
sitting at my workstation cutting and splicing tape.

Mike Rivers wrote:

(3) The one posting the link may not have any idea what it contains,
or of its relevance (which became apparent once I read about the
studio). All he knew was that this was a studio and they had a
Linux system with an audio application.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb0...irrorimage.htm

"The current Mac platform is based around a G4 machine running OS 9.2.
As well as MOTU's Digital Performer, the studio runs Logic from Emagic
and uses BIAS Peak as a WAV file editor. Now, a Linux system will
replace the Mac at the core of the studio, offering a number of new
technologies which Parker hopes will transform the way the partnership
works. The main Linux machine is a dual AMD Athlon 2600+ with 1GB of
RAM, plus an RME Hammerfall 9652 card with 24-channel ADAT and stereo
S/PDIF I/O. The ADAT interfaces are routed via a patchbay to the DM24
console and the MOTU 2408 on the Mac system, so audio data can pass
easily between the old and new systems."

I have posted this link many times.

In article znr1117809483k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

So who is there that I, in my 40 or more years working in audio, might
I have heard of who's using a Linux-based system as part of his
"professional" suite of equipment?


We're starting to use Ardour at CCRMA. We've been playing with it since its
inception and it seems ready for a trial run against ProTools in the next few
months. We still use ProTools in teaching because that's what the students
want to learn. Ardour will be available in the same studio as ProTools and
Logic Pro and we'll see how it goes in terms of demand.

With the Planet CCRMA Linux environment available to all, Ardour might just make
sense for graduating students who don't have the money for ProTools in their
home studios. Perhaps Ardour will reach critical mass in the composition
community in the near future.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

John wrote:

Got any other references with recognizable clients, producers, engineers
or artists, or is this the ONLY shop you can come up with?

Credibility? I've got plenty, but i'm not the thing in question here.

Well, I use NetBSD in my studio. It runs the accounting system, and
let me tell you that the reliability and uptime of the accounting system
is much more important than the actual studio gear.

It's one thing to cancel a session... it's even worse to not be able to
bill for it.
--scott

Oh yes, and for recording, I use tape and razor blades. I even got
to do a window edit last week and the kid producer's jaw just dropped.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Honestly, I am sure there are companies that do provide this kind of
support, and I'd like to know who they are because for one thing I'd
like to patronize them.

RME (hardware/drivers)
Lynx (hardware/drivers)
RML labs (SawStudio software)
Magix (Sequoia software)

Magix is not quite as responsive as they used to be, but you do get
answers to real issues, often from real developers.

I have never used any of this stuff, but I have used the RME outboard
hardware and have been really delighted at their support department.
If their support for the software is half as good, I'll be impressed,
especially at the price point the stuff sells for.
--scott

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

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?= ?= wrote:
Arny Krueger poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

Except the alternatives, which many of us greybeards suffered with
before the NT registry showed up in 1993 or so.

I'd rather suffer the UNIX alternative than the Registry, personally.

The basic concept of having the OS provide a global
parameter-storage facility is a very good one. The NT
implementation seems to be very robust and flexible with
decent performance.

Seems true.

I think the notion of storing the same information in the file system
and in an additional location like the registry is bad, since the two
can easily get of synch when things go wrong. You'd think we would
have learned this lesson after VMS, wouldn't you?

I agree, though, that it does provide improved performance _if_ the
registry is faster to access than a cached filesystem. A few years
ago that was certainly the case but it may not be much longer.
--scott


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

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

John wrote:

Got any other references with recognizable clients, producers, engineers
or artists, or is this the ONLY shop you can come up with?

Credibility? I've got plenty, but i'm not the thing in question here.

Well, I use NetBSD in my studio. It runs the accounting system, and
let me tell you that the reliability and uptime of the accounting system
is much more important than the actual studio gear.
It's one thing to cancel a session... it's even worse to not be able to
bill for it.
--scott

in 25+ years of billing, from system rentals to multiroom studio, i
can't think of one lost file or crash in any of the accounting systems
we've used across various flavors of wintel and mac. we still have the
backups going back to the beginning stored on 5 inch floppies. at
this point, quickbooks on a year old dell/xp has been flawless and beats
the snot out of the custom studio bidness software we used 15 years ago.


Oh yes, and for recording, I use tape and razor blades. I even got
to do a window edit last week and the kid producer's jaw just dropped.

roger nichols would be pleased.
now, can i hear the original again for comparison? g

there are days i would not be broken hearted to go back to 2" 16 and
1/4" 2 trk.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

"Noah Roberts" wrote in message
...

There are many reasons to choose Linux to do your work. Some are
technical, some are monetary, some are social in nature. Linux can, and
for some people does, make a fine DAW among other things it can do for
you. All other nonsense asside.

Not yet. When it has the feature set people want, somewhere down the line
but NOT YET, then I am 100 percent sure many professionals will jump on it,
as they have Windows. Many people on rec.audio.pro will embrace it if and
when they feel there is some advantage. People starting out will embrace it
WHEN they can get the same feature set as an 800 dollar program for free,
not a cracked version (like most windows DAWS are now) but a real piece of
software that they can get some support for, and they will continue to use
what they know if and when they become professionals.

So you can put ardour and a MIDI sequencer on a linux box and actually use a
few pro soundcards? Run a few effects? Welcome to Cakewalk version seven. As
I said, IF and WHEN the linux community delivers the goods, users will
follow - not before then. That's how it is with every application, and
harping about advantages that are abstract to 99.9 percent of users and
should be transparent anyway will not change the way the market works.

So can you please stop beating this into the ground? Your just ****ing off
the people that you want to court. I've been a Linux advocate since kernal
1.0 and what we need is infinite patience.

jb

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1117760734k@trad...

In article
writes:

I probably should have said 'buy a mac and be done with it for five
years'
but nobody wants to hear it.

Why not? You can run Linux on a Mac, can't you?


Not much need to, the command line in OSX is great. It's a 'best of both
worlds' scenario.

jb

--
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

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


Except the alternatives, which many of us greybeards suffered with
before the NT registry showed up in 1993 or so.


I'd rather suffer the UNIX alternative than the Registry, personally.

What is the UNIX alternative?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein