Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com writes:

The point is that
Linux is a very viable DAW.

How do you define "very viable?" One thing that's important to me is
that I don't have any problem getting it running with what I know or
what I can learn very quickly. There are a lot of things about Windows
that I don't know, but I know how to look for and install drivers, and
I know (thanks to System Restore) how to easily unscrew anything that
I've screwed up.


Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Sammy wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:21:43 -0700, Noah Roberts wrote:


It doesn't exist in the Linux world, at the professional level, however
and that is the entire point of this thread or so it seems.

This article is over a year old:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb0...irrorimage.htm

Yea I know.
So?
Notice what is really running the show in the studio.
Also read the followup articles.

http://www.multitrack.us/

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article .com writes:

And most of us in rec.audio.pro can't understand how you Linux preachers
can have the *audacity* to come into a professional group,

I am reading and posting in a Linux newsgroup.

Then keep it there and quit cross-posting. We'd like a little peace
and quiet over here.

Heh. Physician, heal thyself.

I posted replies to a message crossposted to this group. I have since
been only replying to winbozos like you attacking those replies.

Thank you, play again.

In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough. Linux can be used in proffesional applications
and certainly in home studios. Most of the arguments against Linux
audio and for tools like pro-tools and cubebase are just FUD and have
no basis in actual fact.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

Richard Crowley wrote:
No Linux application I've ever seen has the kind of one-step
installation that most MSwin apps are distributed with.

Leave it to a winbozo to assume something doesn't exist because they
never saw it. There is a word for that I think.

On 2005-06-01, Richard Crowley wrote:

"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
...
On 2005-06-01, Richard Crowley wrote:
After scores of posts from the Linux community the lack of any
reference to non-geek package of Linux and an audio app (like

Considering that we're supposed to be coming up with what
are essentially Cubase replacements and the like, your request
is total gibberish.

There isn't any "non-geek" package in this area.

That's what I thought. End of discussion.

This includes the Win32 offerings.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article . com writes:

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.

So you can play the, "Not a real Scotsman," game? Ok, lets see just
how much credibility you have and how soon you will start attacking
fellow workers in the industry just to debase an OS you know nothing
about...

http://www.multitrack.us/

And the start of an e-book written by them:

http://209.134.141.117/jam/book1.htm

On 2005-06-01, Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
Richard Crowley wrote:
After scores of posts from the Linux community the lack of any
reference to non-geek package of Linux and an audio app (like

Considering that we're supposed to be coming up with what
are essentially Cubase replacements and the like, your request
is total gibberish.

There isn't any "non-geek" package in this area.

That's what I thought. End of discussion.

Have there ever been any? I can't imagine any better description for
ProTools or Sonic.

No Linux application I've ever seen has the kind of one-step
installation that most MSwin apps are distributed with.

apt-get install ardour*

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

[deletia]

Now, if you meant to imply that there aren't installshield style
installers for Linux apps then you're simply engaging in clueless FUD
propagation.

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

Although that is hardly the topic of discussion here.

This is a class of app that tends to cost more than the hardware
it's running on and come with ameneties such as copy protection dongles.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

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.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

On 2005-06-01, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article znr1117620712k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article net writes:

If it's even on your mind you've already demonstrated our point
for us. Windows is essentially a pig (ms-dos) in lipstick that was never
engineered for constant, reliable, robust operation on a network.

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.

At least the Software Tools kit was designed together and has a unified
interface. My objection to Linux is mostly all the gingerbread crap that
everybody keeps hanging off of it. But, the nice thing about Linux and
any other Unix is that the integration is loose enough that you don't have
to use all that crap if you don't want. And if you just want to use Software
Tools from the command line and pretend it's 1978, you can do that too.
--scott
(Typing this on an xterm under twm)

Alternately, you can use any combination of "gingerbread crap"
that suits you. You don't have to be subject to some Apple Cheerleader's
vision of the "one true way" and you don't have to be subject to some
Lemming's vision of the "one true way".

You could even exploit ideas that neither one of them would have
ever seen due to their respective blinders.

THAT is a direct consequence of how the Unix GUI in general is
engineered and how Unix is engineered generally.

--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

On Wednesday 01 June 2005 10:38, John
) wrote:

In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

Does "Digital Services Recording Studios" provide its "Digital Services" for
free? For a "problem" or an "application like mixed rate film support",
you contact the company with which you have a support contract.

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'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 all true. BUT, most of the problems with Windows have been
design issues rather than bugs. Pretty much all of the major IE problems
have been due to deliberate design decisions that have resulted in
security issues.

Design decisions are part of engineering commercial products. It
happens in hardware, too. However, until everything got too small to
change anything, it was easier to modify hardware than commercial
software.

I suspect that once the common user embraces Linux, there will be a
demand (filled by the commercial Linux vendors) for the conveniences
of Windows that allows for easy security lapses. We have the
instructions today to turn off some of the defaults that create the
security issues, but the common user views this like the Linux
"assembly instructions" and don't want to bother with it.

Microsoft doesn't do this. When there's an exploit, Microsoft mostly
makes a patch that fixes just that exploit, and which never seems to
address the real design problem that made the exploit possible. And
until they -do-, you're going to be seeing major issues in the Microsoft
world that nobody else has to deal with.

I suppose that some of those design issues are deeply enough embedded
so that it would take a major redesign to fix them. What happened to
the "Built on NT Technology" that was supposed to be a version ready
for enterprise application? I guess it wasn't simple enough for the
common man.

Maybe most of us really shouldn't have computers at all.


--
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:

We run XP here. It is not so free of problems. Most days, I need to
reboot no matter what, when I find that Win XP can't see the printer.
Stupid crapware.

I have two computers that are on all the time except when I travel
(which isn't very often these days). The laptop runs XP, the desktop
runs Win2000. About the only time I have to reboot either of them is
when I install something that requires rebooting to be recognized or
to take out the installation garbage.

What do you people do with your computers that makes them so unstable?

--
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:

There are plenty of
people patching Unix for security so there are plenty of people who
have the knowledge to create and exploit security holes. It's no fun
to screw up the system of a fellow hobbyist. It's only fun to screw up
the system of a major corporation or an innocent and clueless user.

By that reasoning, then, there shouldn't be many Windows exploits, and
tons of Linux exploits. Yet the situation is diametrically opposite.

How comes that?

Because hobbyists don't malicisously screw each other They might
another's help some day.



--
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:

A good portion of Linux and its admin applications are based on existing
functionality in UNIX, so the need for design was much less. Existing
design was used to some extent.

Apart from that, your impression has to be wrong. Why? Because,
without design and sound decisions (for the most part), Linux would have
been a house of cards that would have folded long ago.

It may not be a house of cards, but it's a house that's never
finished. The reason why it hasn't fallen is because there are so many
contractors who like their 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

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

In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough. Linux can be used in proffesional applications
and certainly in home studios. Most of the arguments against Linux
audio and for tools like pro-tools and cubebase are just FUD and have
no basis in actual fact.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

/doc
/google
/support forum

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

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article ?= writes:

There are plenty of
people patching Unix for security so there are plenty of people who
have the knowledge to create and exploit security holes. It's no fun
to screw up the system of a fellow hobbyist. It's only fun to screw up
the system of a major corporation or an innocent and clueless user.

By that reasoning, then, there shouldn't be many Windows exploits, and
tons of Linux exploits. Yet the situation is diametrically opposite.

How comes that?

Because hobbyists don't malicisously screw each other They might
another's help some day.

I guess you don't realize just how many servers on the Internet are
Linux then.

But none of this has anything to do with Linux as a DAW.

begin In znr1117579368k@trad, on 05/31/2005
at 08:57 PM, (Mike Rivers) said:

Then keep it there and quit cross-posting. We'd like a little peace
and quiet over here.

PKB. If you don't believe that the newsgroups filed is appropriate,
then set a followup. Your failure to do so is a tacit agreement that
the article you responded to was posted in the proper groups.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

John wrote:
In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough. Linux can be used in proffesional applications
and certainly in home studios. Most of the arguments against Linux
audio and for tools like pro-tools and cubebase are just FUD and have
no basis in actual fact.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

When I need support there are several options:

1. Contact the author(s) of the offending program.
2. Contact the distribution, most have support mailing lists where you
can get support from developers and other users.
3. Newsgroups and forums such as this one. Some may think that is a
lame way to get support, but anyone with any real experience in any OS
knows that is the BEST way to find help...google and newsgroups. Plus
in the case of Linux at least some of the biggest name developers
frequent groups and lists that are not too annoying.
5. IRC chat channels if I must have my answer NOW.

In other words...the same way I would on any other system. Usual order
for me is to try RTFM, FGI, ask on newsgroups or support lists, ask
developer of app if not in so mentioned lists, ask distro if it could
be a distro problem.

I follow the same procedure when working out problems in Windows, which
I frequently have to write programs in as part of my job.

Now, if you are talking about stupid questions that could be answered
on your own with little difficulty or reading...not many in the Linux
world put up with that too well. People who can't think for
themselves, or even try to, may find support channels closed. The best
support channels for any system are closed to lazy people and self
created idiots...you won't find Windows newsgroups much help either if
you are so hindered.

There are also not a lot of phone in, put you on hold for 2 hours,
support channels. If you have purchased a distro that changes
somewhat, but such is the way. Phone support is a joke 99% of the time
anyway (for any system) and I avoid it as much as possible. You have
to have purchased a distro or support contract to get tech support by
phone, which is quite understandable. I could be wrong, but I doubt
many of the phone support techs would be too terribly knowledgable in
Linux audio and the nuances of recording studios...you might get lucky.

The Internet is the BEST support for anything you might want to know.
This is true of any system, but maybe especially so for Linux. Usually
the absolute best support is comming from fellow users. This is of
course the whole point of creating newsgroups such as
comp.os.linux.misc and rec.audio.pro. Fellow industry people are
usually more help than the hired techs who answer idiots' questions all
day. This is true of ANY industry.

another viewer wrote:
In article ,
Lin=F8nut wrote:

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

In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough. Linux can be used in proffesional applications
and certainly in home studios. Most of the arguments against Linux
audio and for tools like pro-tools and cubebase are just FUD and have
no basis in actual fact.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

/doc
/google
/support forum

a googled support forum, in lieu of an actual manufacturer?
that's professional, not.

You *can* get support from the actual "manufacturer". In fact you end
up talking with the people who built it rather than some hired support
who may or may not know what they are talking about. How many of us
have called up tech support centers of manufacturers to find that you
knew more about the product than the person on the other side of the
phone? I know it has happened to me MANY times and with products
costing many tens of thousands of dollars. Industry support from
fellow users is usually MUCH better than trying to get help from some
manufacturer. In Linux case, this is often the same thing.

Noah Roberts wrote:

I could be wrong, but I doubt
many of the phone support techs would be too terribly knowledgable in
Linux audio and the nuances of recording studios...you might get lucky.

I forgot to mention that instead of phoning in you would probably get
better support from the linux audio lists for developers and users.
These lists are set up to provide audio support for linux and they are
free to join. They are very informative groups also. I get lots of
support there and very quickly...just don't mention soundclick hehe.

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article ?= writes:

A good portion of Linux and its admin applications are based on existing
functionality in UNIX, so the need for design was much less. Existing
design was used to some extent.

Apart from that, your impression has to be wrong. Why? Because,
without design and sound decisions (for the most part), Linux would have
been a house of cards that would have folded long ago.

It may not be a house of cards, but it's a house that's never
finished. The reason why it hasn't fallen is because there are so many
contractors who like their work.

What? Are you trying to say that the reason Linux is still around is
because it is built by people who enjoy their work? Is that supposed
to be a bad thing?

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.

If Linux ever becomes essentially invisible to the extent
that Win and Mac systems are (but which are still too
visible) then it may draw the kind and number of users that
will motivate professional application developers to write
or port professional level applications.

As far as free applications I've been watching this movement
trying to get off the ground for at least 15 years and
compared to the progress in for-profit apps the gap just
continues to widen. Being beholding to a bottom line forces
a kind of competition that benefits end users far greater
than does the personal satisfaction of a freeware author.
Witness InstallShield. :-)


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

In article . com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Fellow industry people are
usually more help than the hired techs who answer idiots' questions all
day. This is true of ANY industry.

generally yes, for the routine stuff. however, in a professional
situation, there are times where the routine is not the question.

many times I have been in production, pressing the envelope of system
capabilities and developing new methodologies or working thru problems
that others simply haven't dealt with before. this is where having a
company that has real professional support services and an understanding
of the business/industry they serve comes into play.

note that that does not include all the manufacturers of workstations on
any given platform. in fact, using that criteria narrows the field in a
hurry. none of the linux platforms make the cut, as well as many
manufacturers who develope for windoze and macintrash. the true
professional audio field is very small, with very high performance
criteria for a company and its products, while the semi-pro/amateur
market is huge but with much less stiff requirements.

when you get into the professional levels in audio production, linux
applications aren't even on the map and it isn't because of it being a
linux platform. fairlight and synclavier systems were on far more
arcane operating systems than linux and in their day dominated the
professional field. it is the feedback and work in the industry that
developes any given product to greater levels of performance, capability
and reliability. when i read about the two linux audio proggies not
having capabilities of the discontinued products of 20 years ago, i have
to shake my head but i don't wonder why nor would i consider them ready
for prime time.
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

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. Do these other file
systems do that automatically, or at all?


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein

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.

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

I choose my system because it works better. I choose my system because
I spend less time battling it and more time using it. I choose my
system because I am more productive in it. I choose Linux.

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.

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.

"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

Richard Crowley wrote:

No Linux application I've ever seen has the kind of one-step
installation that most MSwin apps are distributed with.

Not at all. If anything, I think distributing packages under linux using
rpm is a lot more foolproof than distributing binaries in Windows.

Now, distributing source is a different matter. A lot of linux utilities
are available with full source, because linux users like to build things
to customize them. But most of the stuff that is distributed as binaries
is a lot easier and more convenient to install than Windows stuff.


I don't understand the furor here, sorry. Use whatever tools
you like. I'll stick with the Ampex, personally. But that's
probably more of a geek tool than any of the software solutions.

Yes, but even complex hardware is not as intimidating to
many people as a software application that is difficult to
install or confusing to use. There's just something more
familiar-feeling about the physical world.

If you don't like the system, don't use it. My feeling is that if you don't
understand the computer system at some reasonably low level, you shouldn't
be using it. But then, I'd require folks to learn how to change their oil
before they are allowed to get a driver's license. The nice thing about
the various Unix systems is that you can look inside them and see what is
really going on, which to me provides a much greater comfort level. Admittedly
Linux is poorer in this regard than many of the Unix variants out there, but
anything is better than Windows in terms of being able to see inside.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Arkady Duntov wrote:
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 10:38, John
) wrote:

In article .com,
"Noah Roberts" wrote:

Linux is good enough.

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

Does "Digital Services Recording Studios" provide its "Digital Services" for
free? For a "problem" or an "application like mixed rate film support",
you contact the company with which you have a support contract.

Which is why there are now Linux distributions with real support contracts.
I have been reasonably happy with the for-pay support from Red Hat, and
pretty disappointed with the for-pay SuSe support through Novell. But
either one of them beats Microsoft support hands down, even if they aren't
in the same league as Sun (or DEC in the old days).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Noah Roberts" wrote in message
oups.com...

That's funny. Everybody here seems to be under the impression you were
claiming something along the lines that Ardour was at least the equal of
ProTools , Cubase, or Samplitude.

Make of that what you will, but stop saying I said things I never said.


Well, if is wasn't you, it was one of your compadres. And you certainly
appear to be arguing along those lines

geoff

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. Do these other file
systems do that automatically, or at all?

They do it automatically. There's a BSD paper called "The Berkeley
Self-Balancing Filesystem" from the late 1970s which explains how it
works. It's probably on the web somewhere.

This sort of thing was very innovative in 1980.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Noah Roberts" wrote in message


Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Nobody is arguing about Linux's vialibilty. this thread is about the
suitabilty of Linux for pro audio applications, and the existence thereof.


geoff

In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message

Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Nobody is arguing about Linux's vialibilty. this thread is about the
suitabilty of Linux for pro audio applications, and the existence thereof.

I still have yet to be convinced of the suitability of computers in general
for pro audio applications. Just get a tape machine and be done with it.
It works just fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"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.

geoff

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

In article , Geoff Wood wrote:
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message

Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Nobody is arguing about Linux's vialibilty. this thread is about the
suitabilty of Linux for pro audio applications, and the existence thereof.

I still have yet to be convinced of the suitability of computers in general
for pro audio applications. Just get a tape machine and be done with it.
It works just fine.
--scott


Until you need to buy tape...

-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

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article , Geoff Wood
wrote:
"Noah Roberts" wrote in message

Your inability or unwillingness to learn a new system has nothing to do
with that system's viability.

Nobody is arguing about Linux's vialibilty. this thread is about the
suitabilty of Linux for pro audio applications, and the existence thereof.

I still have yet to be convinced of the suitability of computers in
general
for pro audio applications. Just get a tape machine and be done with it.
It works just fine.


A number of people have been poineering the use of computers to record audio
in the last few weeks. They've achieved a few things that didn't sound too
terrible, and were not too arduous to produce....

geoff

Mike Rivers poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

In article ?= writes:

We run XP here. It is not so free of problems. Most days, I need to
reboot no matter what, when I find that Win XP can't see the printer.
Stupid crapware.

What do you people do with your computers that makes them so unstable?

Connect to a Windows domain controller.

Install Microsoft Windows updates religiously.

Use pure crap like Microsoft Word XP.

Try to do things like search for files in a directory and do properties
on 32000 files at once (that one will have lassssting effects).

The trouble with Windows is that it works okay if you don't do a hell of
a lot with it.

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

another viewer poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

who do you contact for tech support when there is a problem or an
application like mixed rate film support?

/doc
/google
/support forum

a googled support forum, in lieu of an actual manufacturer?
that's professional, not.

No, but it works. Yes.

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

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

apt-get install ardour*

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

That's typing 22 characters.

You're forgetting about using TAB to expand to the next match. You're
forgetting that typing can be very fast.

Instead of a double-click and possibly a
single OK click or two.

You're leaving off the navigation, mouse movement, and waiting for a
GUI to load and draw itself.

But you're making a stupid point anyway. The real point is that a
simple process kicks off an install in both cases.

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