Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Noah Roberts" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote: On the "Applications" page http://www.agnula.org/packages/ I saw lots of "gui front ends" and "tookits" for synthisizer applications, but nothing even remotely resembling a ready- to-run recording/editing application (like Audacity, Ardour, etc.) Did I miss something? Yes. You have missed a lot. That is what happens when you make snap judgments about things you know nothing of. Thanks for the "help". You have confirmed that Linux is just as arcane and inaccessable as ever. http://apt.agnula.org/demudi/pool/main/a/ Which means what exactly? Are you saying that all of these apps are included in the agnula distro? Where is that documented? There is no apparent mention of them on the recommended Agnula URL. Or is documentation something outsiders should know nothing about? |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article znr1117410129k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: So why hasn't some enterprising Linux/Ardour advocate put together an Ardour distribution package that can be easily installed on a fresh out of the box computer to provide a stable, capable DAW for less money than ProTools, Nuendo, Samplitude, Cakewalk, and the like? Seems like if Linux, Ardour, and the support programs are as solid as is claimed, this could be a great deal for, say, $100 or so. They have. It comes with a Linux distribution that is very stripped down and doesn't have a lot of other stuff available. IMO this simplicity is a *good* thing. I'll see if I can find the CD that someone gave me at a show. I'd be interested to try it. I think this is how open source multimedia tools might make it into the mainstream. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-05-30, andy wrote:
It is only cheap if you put zero cost on your time. If you put a realistic charge on your time for someone familiar with windows and unfamiliar with linux then a few hours struggling with a new operating system is going to exceed any software charges. This ignores issues of ...until something needs maintained or fixed under Windows. [deletia] Unix may be difficult to deal with at times but it is at least reliable and well engineered. You can even build genuine appliances with it for those that are really interested in such things. -- The best OS in the world is ultimately useless ||| if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \ |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message ... Geoff Wood wrote: "perso" wrote in message news:429b7088$0$11705 Pro Tools Ardour Samplitude same level/ You clearly do not require much of a DAW if you really think that. How the **** would you know? Are you another, "I used Linux for a week and know all about it," kind of nimrod? Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. geoff |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood wrote:
Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"andy" wrote: It is only cheap if you put zero cost on your time. If you put a realistic charge on your time for someone familiar with windows and unfamiliar with linux then a few hours struggling with a new operating system is going to exceed any software charges. If you are going to count time that way, though, you also have to count time maintaining the operating system. If the system is not being used as a dedicated audio workstation, but is also being used for general purpose stuff, Windows usually requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X. -- --Tim Smith |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Waldo wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:37:28 -0700, Noah Roberts wrote: Geoff Wood wrote: Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? Well, I wouldn't call Ardour lame, but it is not in the same league as even the lite versions of Cubase, Sonar or Samplitude. Just 10 minutes using Ardour is more than enough to prove that point. Waldo Heh, if you say so. Thanks for being a perfect example. As you can see, these anti-linux whack jobs that pop out of the woodwork every time the name Linux is mentioned do not actually know anything about what they are talking of. Any program that is meant to tackle something as complex as what Ardour does takes a LOT longer than 10 minutes to learn. Statements like this guy is making are just silly. Not only that but they have chosen to attack a single application when in fact Linux audio work involves a whole slew of interoperating programs. These people know just enough to sound like they know something to the uninitiated. Reader beware... Linux DAW is MORE than adiquate for the home studio. Linux is even used in pro applications. You can either try it or not. If you try it you will either like it or not. I of course recommend you try...it costs nothing to do so. The investment in time is no longer than learning how to use any other system. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message ... Geoff Wood wrote: Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? Clunky, crashes with plugins. Well, it was a few months ago when I had a play. And when you get a single file to run to install it on a standard OS install, I'll think about trying it again on one of my DAW machines. geoff |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:50:03 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote: "Noah Roberts" wrote in message ... Geoff Wood wrote: Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? Clunky, crashes with plugins. Well, it was a few months ago when I had a play. And when you get a single file to run to install it on a standard OS install, I'll think about trying it again on one of my DAW machines. Get an OS with a decent package manager, apt-get install ardour works for me, or click on the icon for synaptic, and click on what I want to install. The state of affairs of package management on MS-Windows is pathetic. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCnCiTd90bcYOAWPYRAifrAJsF2yqStGKSyQjRA+8MsV YQfbKRfACg0SQi oRZNsLB/tda/MhmVqxVNLHA= =FssQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock The United States of America: Screwing with the English Language for over 200 years. --Mike Sphar |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"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. -- "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) |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Smith" wrote:
If the system is not being used as a dedicated audio workstation, but is also being used for general purpose stuff, 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. I'm even doing everything wrong, by leaving it networked and MSOfficed and iTuned and pretty-much-everything-elsed. 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. It really is "foolproof" -- this fool can't figure the thing out at ALL. Yet my XP machine just... works. So how come everyone says Windows is hard to live with? It hasn't been for me, and I'm not even smart or careful. What am I missing? -- "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) |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:jtltm2- And when you get a single file to run to install it on a standard OS install, I'll think about trying it again on one of my DAW machines. Get an OS with a decent package manager, apt-get install ardour works for me, or click on the icon for synaptic, and click on what I want to install. The state of affairs of package management on MS-Windows is pathetic. WTF are you talking about ? Check what you need to know about and ensure pior to installing Ardour - screeds. In Win you run setup.exe (or whatever) for any DAW and Bob's your uncle. In some DAW apps you may have some options in the setup. geoff |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
En/na Lorin David Schultz ha escrit:
"Tim Smith" wrote: I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do even a simple disk defrag on that mother****er. hahahahahahahaha! tipically MS minded! you have to defrag periodically in MS because the filesystem is a turd. you will not find a defrag utility on serious OSs because there is no need to!! i can't believe how MS can sell defragging as a great idea when it's precisely a downside of their filesystem. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Easy? You've listed six things, none of which I clearly understand is a ready-to-go auido package. And you apparently haven't tried something that you've listed. So, where's the audio ready-to-bo audio appllication? "Ready-to-go" apparently has a different meaning to them. I have yet to meet a Linux user that wasn't a Linux Hacker and Evangelist. Never met one that was primarily a user of an application that happened to run on Linux. To me, it is a clear indication that Linux is still a raggedy, fiddly, non-mainstream platform that is still far from ready for "ordinary users". And then there is the matter of the layered applications. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
En/na perso ha escrit:
Hi I'm actually thinking about a project of home studio, linux based. Do you think Ardour could be a serious choice for a personal but "serious" home studio ? : Linux agnula Ardour + Delta 1010 or RME Hammerfall soundcraft... Fostex D 80 etc... regards http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb0...irrorimage.htm |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
In article cHXme.26062$on1.10670@clgrps13,
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote: "Tim Smith" wrote: If the system is not being used as a dedicated audio workstation, but is also being used for general purpose stuff, Windows usually requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X. Like what? I'm not arguing, I just don't get it. There are several areas: 1. For the typical user, dealing with viruses and/or spyware. 2. For those who are into games, dealing with drivers and DirectX. Whenever you get a new game, that requires a later version of DirectX than you have, it often requires a lot of fiddling to keep your old stuff working. Same when ATI or NVidia releases new drivers. 3. Hardware setup. Wireless networking on Windows, for example, can be much more time consuming to set up than wireless on OS X, because too much is left up to the hardware vendor, and hardware vendors often have some strange notions as to how to design setup and configuration software. 4. Keeping software up to date. With most Linux distributions and with OS X, you don't need any third-party software for safe, effective basic computer use. With Windows, you need to get a third-party browser and email client, or at least get third-party add-ons to the bundled browser and email client. That means you end up with important software that is not covered by Windows Update, and so you've got to deal with keeping that software up to date. On Linux or OS X, everything you need for basic computer use is included, and covered with the system update mechanism. -- --Tim Smith |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Smith" wrote ...
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote: "Tim Smith" wrote: If the system is not being used as a dedicated audio workstation, but is also being used for general purpose stuff, Windows usually requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X. Like what? I'm not arguing, I just don't get it. There are several areas: 1. For the typical user, dealing with viruses and/or spyware. Subscribe to McAfee. It is completely automatic. Always up to date without even looking at it. I believe there are free versions out there also. The more Apple people tout their virus-free environment, the farther they have to fall when one hits them. I'd be concerned, but they believe they are exempt. 2. For those who are into games, dealing with drivers and DirectX. Whenever you get a new game, that requires a later version of DirectX than you have, it often requires a lot of fiddling to keep your old stuff working. Same when ATI or NVidia releases new drivers. Google for "apple video driver update" returned only 902,000 hits. Whatever could they be? 4. Keeping software up to date. With most Linux distributions and with OS X, you don't need any third-party software for safe, effective basic computer use. With Windows, you need to get a third-party browser and email client, or at least get third-party add-ons to the bundled browser and email client. Why? Most of us find Outlook and Outlook Express to be great. I have tried the top dozen or so 3rd party newsreaders and was significantly disappointed in all of them. To address the larger question. My audio workstation has not had a single update since it was built 5 years ago (Windows 98), and my video workstations have not been touched since the day they were built, either. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote:
Geoff Wood wrote: Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? Noah, "you guys" ( the Linux dewds ) are like Car Club folks/tinkerers. You wanna crack open the box. The other group ( rec.audio.pro ) wants to be able to quickly assemble a stable, running, high-feature system. They're not wanting to be "pit crew", they wanna drive the thing. They're not above tinkering, but it's not a primary goal. I recently bought a new computer, running XP, put up N-Track on it and was running that night. I was able to finally diagnose that one plugin was causing all my old crashes on Win98SE. The requirements of the pro audio guys include: - all but mission-critical levels of stability. - plugin support, with access to a very rich suite of plugins. - SMPTE/MTC synch capability, both ways - drivers for soundcards. and they want it pretty much precompiled. Does this exist? -- Les Cargill |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
In article 0vXme.26061$on1.9735@clgrps13,
Lorin David Schultz wrote: "perso" wrote: but i'm sure Windows won't be future of DAW applications. for toys ok ... but not for pros applis. Bzzt. You lose. I make my living with Pro Tools on a Windows machine. With that particular application it's actually more stable than our Mac. What is really sad about all of this stuff is that the operating systems that _do_ really provide actual realtime functions to build a DAW around are pretty much dead. Stuff like BeOS and pSOS just will never have the market share that they deserve and there will never be enough of an installed base for serious DAW development on them. Which is a shame, since it would be nice to have the OS be your friend and not your enemy for realtime work. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Lorin David Schultz wrote:
Admittedly I've never tried anything Unix based, except our Mac G4. It blows its brains out twice a week for no apparent reason whatsoever, and I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do even a simple disk defrag on that mother****er. It really is "foolproof" -- this fool can't figure the thing out at ALL. Yet my XP machine just... works. One of the nice things about the Berkeley filesystem is that file fragmentation isn't really an issue. As long as you keep below 80% of the total disk usage, you should never need to defragment. So how come everyone says Windows is hard to live with? It hasn't been for me, and I'm not even smart or careful. What am I missing? Things like disk defragmentation are an excellent example of the annoyances that Windows users have to put up with, that people in the rest of the world don't really have to worry about. --scottt -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
-- Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot. "Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message news:0vXme.26061$on1.9735@clgrps13... "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. He said the -future- of DAW applications. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Les Cargill wrote: Noah Roberts wrote: Geoff Wood wrote: Nothing to do with Linux - we are talking about an application here - Ardour. A particularly lame application when compared with current state-of-the-art. Again, how would you know? How is it lame? Noah, "you guys" ( the Linux dewds ) are like Car Club folks/tinkerers. You wanna crack open the box. So you say. I don't think you know what you are talking about. The requirements of the pro audio guys include: - all but mission-critical levels of stability. - plugin support, with access to a very rich suite of plugins. - SMPTE/MTC synch capability, both ways - drivers for soundcards. and they want it pretty much precompiled. Does this exist? I am unsure of #3 but I believe that is a yes on all of those. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:31:25 -0400, Waldo wrote:
snip And as for a home user being able to figure out how to get Linux and then all it's baggage running just to use an application like Ardour, he will have his shiny new sound card installed and the CD that came with it running Cubase Lite or similar long before he even figures out how to install Linux and get his sound card to work. Installing Linux is very easy these days, and unless you have something exotic or unsupported, your sound card should work straight away. Whatever the merits or otherwise of its use as an audio platform, it can no longer be claied with any credibility that Linux is hard to install. It's certainly a lot easier than windows. -- Kier |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Waldo wrote: On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:53:28 -0700, Noah Roberts wrote: As you can see, these anti-linux whack jobs that pop out of the woodwork every time the name Linux is mentioned do not actually know anything about what they are talking of. Any program that is meant to tackle something as complex as what Ardour does takes a LOT longer than 10 minutes to learn. But it only takes 10 minutes to import a wave, apply effects and see the program go belly up. It only takes 5 minutes to experience a user interface that is terrible. It takes maybe another 10 minutes to sample some of the Linux plugins and listen to how terrible they sound. It takes about 30 seconds to see there is no context sensetive help system. Whatever. Me thinks you *might* have tried an old version...if you even tried it at all. Statements like this guy is making are just silly. Not only that but they have chosen to attack a single application when in fact Linux audio work involves a whole slew of interoperating programs. These people know just enough to sound like they know something to the uninitiated. Reader beware... Wrong. Statements from an amateur trying to compare a toy, Ardour, to professional applications like Protools, Samplitude and so forth are the silly ones. Again, whatever. Ardour isn't a 'toy'. I never compared the two either. I have said several times I have never used the other programs and REFUSE to compare them. I guess on top of talking about **** you know nothing about you also can't read. Why am I not surprised? I didn't attack Linux, Oh really now... Do you use Protools, Samplitude,Cubase or similar on a daily basis in a professional or semi-professional setting? Nope. I have NEVER used any of those systems. I use Linux DAW only. I have no need for any of the above programs. If I am happy with Linux why would I need those? The logic of your point here fails me utterly. If not, you have absolutely nothing of value to add to this thread other than your obvious Linux zealotism and evangelism which might get you a pat on the back in the Linux groups. I have plenty to add. I know a LOT more about Linux than you do. I also know a LOT more about doing audio work with Linux than you do. Stick to your own realm of expertice...you are way over your head here. Linux DAW is MORE than adiquate for the home studio. Linux is even used in pro applications. You can either try it or not. If you try it you will either like it or not. I of course recommend you try...it costs nothing to do so. The investment in time is no longer than learning how to use any other system. I didn't say it isn't worth trying, I said it doesn't compare to professional applications. It just doesn't. Says you. Why should what you say matter? You don't even know what you are talking about. Stick to what you know. And as for a home user being able to figure out how to get Linux and then all it's baggage running just to use an application like Ardour, he will have his shiny new sound card installed and the CD that came with it running Cubase Lite or similar long before he even figures out how to install Linux and get his sound card to work. If you say so. Hopefully everyone can see by now that you don't know what you are saying anyway. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote:
Linux DAW is MORE than adiquate for the home studio. ProTools and Samplitude, for example, have been ready for professional work, not home studio work, for a long time. What keeps you from realizing that part of it? Call people names if you like (I sometimes like to do that), but you aren't helping your Linux cause by ignoring some potential differences in the professionally ready-to-go capabilities of these apps. -- ha |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: The requirements of the pro audio guys include: - all but mission-critical levels of stability. - plugin support, with access to a very rich suite of plugins. - SMPTE/MTC synch capability, both ways - drivers for soundcards. and they want it pretty much precompiled. Does this exist? I am unsure of #3 but I believe that is a yes on all of those. URL's, Noah, this ain't about your religion. Believe what you want; where is the action that fits the request? Les is right on it. Pay attention, please. If Linux is going to move into PT or Samplitude territory it will have advocates that understand the territory. -- ha |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote:
andy wrote: It is only cheap if you put zero cost on your time. In my experience it is still cheaper. So you're saying your own time is worth less than zero. That won't work for my grocery bill. -- ha |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Ready-to-go" apparently has a different meaning to them. I have yet to meet a Linux user that wasn't a Linux Hacker and Evangelist. Never met one that was primarily a user of an application that happened to run on Linux. Kurt A. has stuff working, not audio realted, on some nifty little Linux boxes he put together. I keep half an eye on Linux for audio, and I figure that when it's worth a whole eyeball's concentration, Kurt will be waving flags at me. He knows what it'd take to get a non-nerd's attention, and he also knows what's not yet ready for breakfast, let alone primetime. -- ha |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote: Whatever. Me thinks you *might* have tried an old version...if you even tried it at all. That's it, place the blame on the person instead of the program. When Cubase for Windows was first released it had many problems. I don't recall seeing such venom released from the professional community when people using the program complained. We all knew it needed some work and more importantly we didn't attack people who posted their troubles with the program. We worked together and now Cubase spawned Nuendo and these are excellent programs that are used professionally every single day. The Linux community really needs to learn something about social skills especially since it is the community itself that is supporting and flag waving for Linux. IOW you guys need every body you can find and making yourselves look like idiots is no way to garner support. Statements like this guy is making are just silly. Not only that but they have chosen to attack a single application when in fact Linux audio work involves a whole slew of interoperating programs. These people know just enough to sound like they know something to the uninitiated. Reader beware... Wrong. Statements from an amateur trying to compare a toy, Ardour, to professional applications like Protools, Samplitude and so forth are the silly ones. Again, whatever. Ardour isn't a 'toy'. Maybe to you and your needs it isn't but when compared to Protools etc Ardour IS a toy. I never compared the two either. I have said several times I have never used the other programs and REFUSE to compare them. I guess on top of talking about **** you know nothing about you also can't read. Why am I not surprised? The other person claims useage of all those programs including Ardour, professionally, and in my book that counts a heck of a lot more than your claims. And how do you know the other person doesn't know what he is talking about? The same could be said of you and quite frankly there is a lot more evidence to support the latter. I didn't attack Linux, Oh really now... Do you use Protools, Samplitude,Cubase or similar on a daily basis in a professional or semi-professional setting? Nope. I have NEVER used any of those systems. I use Linux DAW only. I have no need for any of the above programs. If I am happy with Linux why would I need those? The logic of your point here fails me utterly. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Look, my brother is a carpenter by trade and all of his tools are professional quality. He cringes when he sees my mostly "Harbor Freight" specials. Yet these tools work for me. They, mostly, would fall apart if he had to use them 12 hours a day building custom homes. The same thing applies to programs like Ardour. What you don't seem to understand is that a crash during your editing your cousin suzies wedding with your onboard soundchip is a PITA. A crash when I am tracking 32 tracks LIVE is the potential end of my relationship with that client. If not, you have absolutely nothing of value to add to this thread other than your obvious Linux zealotism and evangelism which might get you a pat on the back in the Linux groups. I have plenty to add. I know a LOT more about Linux than you do. I also know a LOT more about doing audio work with Linux than you do. How do you know that? Do you know the other person? You may know about Linux, but you sure as hell don't know anything about pro-audio and that is what this thread is about. See the title? Stick to your own realm of expertice...you are way over your head here. You do realize that you have been posting to a group that consists of people who are professionals in the audio field and many of whom have been doing this long before Linux was invented? You do realize that you look like an idiot posting your Linux drivel in a group where people make a living doing professional audio? Like I said, you may know something about Linux, but you know zero about professional audio and it's painfully obvious. P.S. I'm getting sick and tired of these Linux lunatics preaching in groups where they don't belong. It's almost like the Moonies that used to be soliciting at the airports back in the 70's. Most of these people seem to be on a mission of nastiness and god help the person who disagrees with them. Sorry for the rant Linux DAW is MORE than adiquate for the home studio. Linux is even used in pro applications. You can either try it or not. If you try it you will either like it or not. I of course recommend you try...it costs nothing to do so. The investment in time is no longer than learning how to use any other system. I didn't say it isn't worth trying, I said it doesn't compare to professional applications. It just doesn't. Says you. Why should what you say matter? You don't even know what you are talking about. Stick to what you know. And as for a home user being able to figure out how to get Linux and then all it's baggage running just to use an application like Ardour, he will have his shiny new sound card installed and the CD that came with it running Cubase Lite or similar long before he even figures out how to install Linux and get his sound card to work. If you say so. Hopefully everyone can see by now that you don't know what you are saying anyway. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:17:05 +1200, Geoff Wood wrote: "Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:jtltm2- And when you get a single file to run to install it on a standard OS install, I'll think about trying it again on one of my DAW machines. Get an OS with a decent package manager, apt-get install ardour works for me, or click on the icon for synaptic, and click on what I want to install. The state of affairs of package management on MS-Windows is pathetic. WTF are you talking about ? Check what you need to know about and ensure pior to installing Ardour - screeds. In Win you run setup.exe (or whatever) for any DAW and Bob's your uncle. In some DAW apps you may have some options in the setup. You skipped most of the steps with MS-Windows, first, you have to know what it is you want to install, then, you have to *find* it, hopefully, a recent version, not some package off in some backwater ftp site. Then you have to download it, and *then* you can "click setup.exe" Of course, now, you have little idea what was installed, or where, you have to go through all this *again* if you want to upgrade it, likely including removing the old ardour install ( something which goes wrong a *lot* on MS-Windows) meanwhile, you may, or may not (likely not) have any idea what was changed in the registry, or how it affected anything else in that abomination. Me? apt-get search DAW shows ardour-gtk as the first item returned, sudo aprt-get install ardour-gtk does everything else. Fetches it, gets any dependencies, tells me if I have something allready that would conflict with it (not likely in this case, but in other packages, like an smtp server, a possibility) and installs, configures and adds it to my menus. Now, I can tell what *exact* files were installed, and where they were put. If something else I install tries to overwrite one of ardour's files, I get a warning, Furthermore, ardour is now part of my system, and is upgraded with the rest of the system. I don't have to manually chase down upgrades, To recap: Your way? search the internet for what you *hope* is a recent version, grab it, install it, hope it didn't bugger up the registry, or spray files all over your filesystem in wierd locations with no tracking of what went where, then, if you want to update it later, go through it all again. Every time you want to upgrade. Me? one command, or click of a list selection, and I am done, when upgrading, it's taken care of, with the rest of the software on this system. I know what I prefer. Package management on MS-Windows, is barely above the equivilent of chipping flint for a sharp point... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCnLgId90bcYOAWPYRAvRpAKDomPs3nLq/2uogKK4lRQVjg2adkwCeI6mD aiZJwH5xUxuqm6Nr+1YZZ6k= =SNg/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Reality continues to ruin my life. -- Calvin |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Noah Roberts wrote:
Nope. I have NEVER used any of those systems. I use Linux DAW only. I have no need for any of the above programs. If I am happy with Linux why would I need those? The logic of your point here fails me utterly. His logic is that only a poseur would say Samplitude and PT were equalled by the Linux audio apps without deep experience of Smaplitude and PT. You've outted yourself. -- ha |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood wrote: "Jim Richardson" wrote in message news:jtltm2- And when you get a single file to run to install it on a standard OS install, I'll think about trying it again on one of my DAW machines. Get an OS with a decent package manager, apt-get install ardour works for me, or click on the icon for synaptic, and click on what I want to install. The state of affairs of package management on MS-Windows is pathetic. WTF are you talking about ? Check what you need to know about and ensure pior to installing Ardour - screeds. In Win you run setup.exe (or whatever) for any DAW and Bob's your uncle. In some DAW apps you may have some options in the setup. Well, Linux doesn't run 'exe' files so of course there is no Setup.exe you can run. However, when I installed Ardour I did this: 'emerge ardour' I didn't even have the thing or its dependancies on my system. A little while later my system had downloaded, compiled, and installed everything I needed and I was in business. This was on a 64 bit system even. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "Mike Rivers" wrote ... Easy? You've listed six things, none of which I clearly understand is a ready-to-go auido package. And you apparently haven't tried something that you've listed. So, where's the audio ready-to-bo audio appllication? "Ready-to-go" apparently has a different meaning to them. I have yet to meet a Linux user that wasn't a Linux Hacker and Evangelist. Never met one that was primarily a user of an application that happened to run on Linux. I'd have to say you haven't met any Linux users then. To me, it is a clear indication that Linux is still a raggedy, fiddly, non-mainstream platform that is still far from ready for "ordinary users". And then there is the matter of the layered applications. It's fine for everyday users. The only reason it's not deployed in offices all over the world is because it costs money to teach people how to click a different icon or read a different menu, and some users buy the 'compatibility' myth which is the same FUD ms used against Apple (I have to say it's nice to look at MS word files on a Solaris box). Out of the package, most distributions have just as much driver support as windows XP, and if you buy a PC with Linux on it, it's just like buying a Windows PC. It will do all the same things in pretty much the same way, except you can't go to wal-mart and buy any old game and expect it to work. Using some distributions is a bit less mac-like than Windows XP is, in the sense that there might be less convenience, the interface is less intuitive, and there is a little more hassle dealing with files and instalations, but people who have been around windows for a while should be comfortable. Where Linux is lacking right now is in 'workstation' media production, specifically audio and video (but for image manipulation, it really is suitable for most needs). Development is proceeding, and compared to how long it took Windows to catch up with Mac in that regard, it's coming along at about the same rate. Unfortuneately, media production is what we care about on rec.audio.pro. Fortuneately, you have a couple of other choices out there. jb |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
"hank alrich" wrote in message .. . Noah Roberts wrote: andy wrote: It is only cheap if you put zero cost on your time. In my experience it is still cheaper. So you're saying your own time is worth less than zero. That won't work for my grocery bill. I remember spending a very long time getting my first Windows DAW together, and even longer on the first Windows 'Studio Computer' that did MIDI, 2 track audio, and (ghasp!) still image video capture. The only thing worse that I've ever had to do was work with Arcnet for PC networks. jb |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Sammy wrote: On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:21:52 -0700, Noah Roberts wrote: 'emerge ardour' Yea and why don't you tell them about the week you spent installing Gentoo? Yes, Gentoo is a distribution meant for non-newbies that wish to go totally custom. It is probably the hardest and most consuming install of any Linux distribution. You need to know a lot to get to the point where it will boot itself. Then you tell it to emerge gnome or something and walk away for a couple days. The system you get is customized for your own computer and with your own preferences compiled from the source. You can install using the GRP and it takes much less time. This is a setup that contains all the standard apps like mozilla, gnome, and kde all compiled and ready for install. But you don't get the same customability with this setup. At any rate, when I installed Gentoo on my 64 there was no GRP. I did a stage 3 install and it took 2 days, not a week, in which most of that time was speant doing yard work and watching TV. You pay in startup time this way, but I prefer the resulting system to anything else available. I certainly do not recommend that newbies jump right into Gentoo. But even on the most difficult to install Linux installing audio programs is really easy. If you expect setup.exe you will be disappointed, but what you get is not much, if any, harder and is a better way of doing installs. If you really MUST have setup.exe then stick to Windows. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message options in the setup. Well, Linux doesn't run 'exe' files so of course there is no Setup.exe you can run. However, when I installed Ardour I did this: 'emerge ardour' The Ardour page should mention this straightforward method then, rather that the screeds it does say regarding install. geoff |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Smith" wrote in message 1. For the typical user, dealing with viruses and/or spyware. Not a problem, espcially on a DAW machine. 2. For those who are into games, dealing with drivers and DirectX. Whenever you get a new game, that requires a later version of DirectX than you have, it often requires a lot of fiddling to keep your old stuff working. Same when ATI or NVidia releases new drivers. Auto-update, or a click on a ferebie CD keeps all that up to date. 3. Hardware setup. Wireless networking on Windows, for example, can be much more time consuming to set up than wireless on OS X, because too much is left up to the hardware vendor, and hardware vendors often have some strange notions as to how to design setup and configuration software. WIreless network on a DAW ? 4. Keeping software up to date. With most Linux distributions and with OS X, you don't need any third-party software for safe, effective basic computer use. With Windows, you need to get a third-party browser What ? and email client, or at least get third-party add-ons to the bundled browser and email client. What ? That means you end up with important software that is not covered by Windows Update, Bull**** and so you've got to deal with keeping that software up to date. On Linux or OS X, everything you need for basic computer use is included, and covered with the system update mechanism. Just like Windows then. geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why Windows is Easier than Linux For An End User, Especially for Multimedia work. | Pro Audio | |||
The problem with Linux and digital audio. | Pro Audio | |||
Is there a non Linux audio group? | Pro Audio | |||
Is there a non Linux audio group? | Pro Audio | |||
Linux blows for any type of serious digital audio work. | Pro Audio |