Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#481
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On Jan 3, 9:44*pm, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
I didn't know the source code to ProTools was available to end users. Where can I get it? Had Digi been willing to offer it to me in December 1999 when I asked, Ardour wouldn't exist - I'd have spent 10 years helping (?) to improve and extend ProTools. Really. |
#482
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What is a DAW, anyway?
Laurence Payne wrote:
We don't have Logic for Windows because Apple bought it in 2002 and decided to dump the Windows user base. Rumor at the time was that Windows was 30% of Emagic's Logic market, and accounted for 70% of their support costs. If true, that might have helped them be happy to sell the company to Apple. -- ha shut up and play your guitar http://www.armadillomusicproductions...rryMeHome.html http://hankalrich.com/ |
#483
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On 4 Jan 2010 10:18:45 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Andersen wrote: In order to find and fix the problem, the source code is needed. A debugger with compiled code is useless. Try loading notepad.exe into a debugger and see what happens. Hint:nothing. If it's a decent debugger, you should see something that looks like assembler, and you should still be able to set breakpoints and look at values. If you have the symbol table you can even look at all the variables by name, even without the source code. I don't think the OP has clue what he is talking about. I wish I had a lot less clue about this stuff. I have spent too damn much time taking apart other people's broken software. --scott I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. -- John Andersen I'd rather be surfin! 1/4/2010 2:43:55 PM |
#484
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:35:06 -0800 (PST), dawhead wrote:
On Jan 3, 9:44*pm, Moshe Goldfarb wrote: I didn't know the source code to ProTools was available to end users. Where can I get it? Had Digi been willing to offer it to me in December 1999 when I asked, Ardour wouldn't exist - I'd have spent 10 years helping (?) to improve and extend ProTools. Really. Somehow I doubt they are going to give you the keys to the hen house. That would be like Nvidia giving ATI the source code to their GPU. Ardour is a fine program that I use quite frequently to record live events. I and many other happy users appreciate the hard work you have put into the program. -- John Andersen I'd rather be surfin! 1/4/2010 2:46:22 PM |
#485
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
John Andersen wrote:
I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. When that is the case, the lay person is totally at the mercy of the vendor. And since most DAW systems consist of products from multiple vendors that have not necessarily been integrated so well, they are often at the mercy of a bunch of people pointing fingers at one another. This is why it's good to learn how things work inside. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#486
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On 4 Jan 2010 15:23:38 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Andersen wrote: I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. When that is the case, the lay person is totally at the mercy of the vendor. And since most DAW systems consist of products from multiple vendors that have not necessarily been integrated so well, they are often at the mercy of a bunch of people pointing fingers at one another. This is why it's good to learn how things work inside. --scott Of course it's good to learn how things work. But you seem to be the one who said a debugger is a required tool for every pc user, or something similar. Considering that unless the user is running Linux, which means he more than likely has the source code, a debugger is almost totally useless. Sorry but you don't know seem to know what you are talking about. -- John Andersen I'd rather be surfin! 1/4/2010 3:40:58 PM |
#487
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
John Andersen wrote:
On 4 Jan 2010 15:23:38 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote: John Andersen wrote: I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. When that is the case, the lay person is totally at the mercy of the vendor. And since most DAW systems consist of products from multiple vendors that have not necessarily been integrated so well, they are often at the mercy of a bunch of people pointing fingers at one another. This is why it's good to learn how things work inside. --scott Of course it's good to learn how things work. But you seem to be the one who said a debugger is a required tool for every pc user, or something similar. Considering that unless the user is running Linux, which means he more than likely has the source code, a debugger is almost totally useless. Sorry but you don't know seem to know what you are talking about. 99.9% of computer users (maybe Linux users excepted) don't want to, and shouldn't have to, know anything about a debugger. geoff |
#488
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
John Andersen wrote:
Of course it's good to learn how things work. But you seem to be the one who said a debugger is a required tool for every pc user, or something similar. No, I said that if you were running a studio or any business based on a technology, you need to know how to use the tools required to diagnose problems with that technology. In the case of a studio built around a tape machine, that means knowing how to use a scope and a signal generator and knowing how to trace signal flow even if you may not have a schematic. In the case of a studio based around a computer system, that means having a debugger or at least a crude tracing tool, and be able to watch basic control flow through a program even if you may not have source code. Considering that unless the user is running Linux, which means he more than likely has the source code, a debugger is almost totally useless. Sorry but you don't know seem to know what you are talking about. Sorry, I've been debugging systems without source code and without schematics for many years. It's no fun, but it's part of the job. Source code and schematics make it much easier, and great documentation the describes internals (like Bob Orban's) is even better. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#489
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On 4 Jan 2010 16:47:30 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Andersen wrote: Of course it's good to learn how things work. But you seem to be the one who said a debugger is a required tool for every pc user, or something similar. No, I said that if you were running a studio or any business based on a technology, you need to know how to use the tools required to diagnose problems with that technology. In the case of a studio built around a tape machine, that means knowing how to use a scope and a signal generator and knowing how to trace signal flow even if you may not have a schematic. Of course. You can fix a tape machine with some basic hand tools and a service manual. You are not going to get the source code to the programs you typically run on a computer unless they happen to be open source in the first place. In the case of a studio based around a computer system, that means having a debugger or at least a crude tracing tool, and be able to watch basic control flow through a program even if you may not have source code. Ludicrous at best. 1. Loading an executable file into a debugger gives extrememly limited information. 2. Unless the executable file was compiled with debugging info, which is unlikely except maybe for beta code, you will get even less information. Sorry, I've been debugging systems without source code and without schematics for many years. Good for you. To make a statement that this is a required skill or that a debugger should be a part of every computer user's arsenal is idiotic. It's no fun, but it's part of the job. Debugging programs is not part of the job for 99.999999999 percent of computer users out there. Programmers aside of course. Source code and schematics make it much easier, and great documentation the describes internals (like Bob Orban's) is even better. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do. --scott You won't even get to square one using a debugger on an exe file from a program like protools. And that's assuming the files aren't encrypted, which most of them are. Sorry but your POV WRT to software is not even close to reality. With respect to hardware, I agree with you because at least you can see what is front of you and while not having a schematic is a major problem, it's not impossible to still trouble shoot. With a compiled executable program, like Cubase.exe, Sonar.exe and no source code the debugger is 99.99 percent useless. And that's not even counting all the dll's the program is loading. -- John Andersen I'd rather be surfin! 1/4/2010 4:53:54 PM |
#490
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0500, John Andersen
wrote: I wish I had a lot less clue about this stuff. I have spent too damn much time taking apart other people's broken software. --scott I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. Someone generally manages to patch out the copy protection :-) |
#491
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:26:32 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:45:42 -0500, John Andersen wrote: I wish I had a lot less clue about this stuff. I have spent too damn much time taking apart other people's broken software. --scott I think you're blowing smoke. Without the source code and considering the size of an application like protools their is very little a lay person can do. Someone generally manages to patch out the copy protection :-) Generally it's the challenge response system itself that is cracked. IOW they target the algorithm that generates the key/serial number combination and there are various methods to doing this some of which don't even require the program itself but only a list of valid serial numbers and their corresponding keys. Usually this is obtained from an insider. Once they reverse engineer the algorithm it's a simple matter to write a keygen program to spit out a key for a given serial number. The guys disassembling the compiled programs are not lay people nor are they using off the shelf debuggers or disassemblers in stock form. Specialized highly customized programs are typically used for cracking programs like Protools and Cubase etc. It took Team Air thousands of man hours to crack Cubase 5 and that's with some inside information, if you can believe what's out on the net. The time frame seems to back it up. PT 8 hasn't been cracked yet AFAIK. I haven't seen a crack of the iLok version of Ivory although the challenge response older versions have been cracked I believe. It's not something Scott could do loading cb.exe into his debugger. -- John Andersen I'd rather be surfin! 1/4/2010 6:47:21 PM |
#492
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
John Andersen wrote:
Ludicrous at best. Here's the kind of thing that computer people do all the time. This is mine for today: - User comes to me with a problem. He's running a PC board layout application which has taken to crashing every time it is started. The documentation was translated from German and is less than comprehensible. - The user's response to the problem has been random board swapping. He has reinstalled the application twice and done some operating system updates but he isn't sure which updates he applied. - I run the application using a thing called ptrace, which is the OSX version of the trace application. Linux has a thing called ktrace which basically does the same thing. Every time a call is made to the kernal, it produces a line of output. - Looking at the output, I see it's opening up a number of files, reading from them and closing them. The last thing it does before crashing is to open up a hidden file on the user's top level directory, then read some stuff. It crashes before it closes the thing. - Assuming that this is some sort of undocumented configuration file that stores user specific information and which has become corrupted, I rename it. The application starts up fine. Now, I could have found the same problem by running the application as another user and determining that the issue was specific to that user's account. Or I could have found it by running it in the debugger and looking at the open file handles when the application crashed. But I found it with a trace. 1. Loading an executable file into a debugger gives extrememly limited information. Yup, but stuff like stack traces, even without symbols so you're looking at addresses, can be remarkably helpful. 2. Unless the executable file was compiled with debugging info, which is unlikely except maybe for beta code, you will get even less information. Yes, most commercial code is stripped of symbol tables, so you don't get to see variable names or routine names for anything inside the program. You still get to see routine names for calls to libraries and the kernal, though, which is pretty powerful. Sorry, I've been debugging systems without source code and without schematics for many years. Good for you. To make a statement that this is a required skill or that a debugger should be a part of every computer user's arsenal is idiotic. It's no fun, but it's part of the job. Debugging programs is not part of the job for 99.999999999 percent of computer users out there. Programmers aside of course. No, but if you're running a business that is dependant on a computer system, you need to have someone on staff who knows this stuff. If a damaged file is going to result in losing billable studio time, you need someone who can find it and fix it fast. Source code and schematics make it much easier, and great documentation the describes internals (like Bob Orban's) is even better. But sometimes you have to do what you have to do. You won't even get to square one using a debugger on an exe file from a program like protools. I'm sorry to say I have done it (though only with the Mac version). And that's assuming the files aren't encrypted, which most of them are. I haven't seen that yet in any audio application, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's coming down the pike soon. Self-extracting binaries aren't a new idea but they are returning in a general attempt to hide what's going on inside the box. Sorry but your POV WRT to software is not even close to reality. With respect to hardware, I agree with you because at least you can see what is front of you and while not having a schematic is a major problem, it's not impossible to still trouble shoot. SOMEBODY has to look inside the box. It's better if it's you, because it's better to get paid to do it than to pay someone else to do it for you. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#493
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
John Andersen wrote:
Generally it's the challenge response system itself that is cracked. IOW they target the algorithm that generates the key/serial number combination and there are various methods to doing this some of which don't even require the program itself but only a list of valid serial numbers and their corresponding keys. Usually this is obtained from an insider. Once they reverse engineer the algorithm it's a simple matter to write a keygen program to spit out a key for a given serial number. That's a smart way of doing it, but reverse-engineering the algorithm as a black box can't be much fun, even if you have a lot of valid keys to look at. I know that in the Solaris world, the vast majority of applications use the same license manager, and they all basically link in a single routine that queries the daemon and then returns two 64-bit words on the stack which the application can use as it likes. It's relatively easy to identify the routine since it's the same on all applications and so it just becomes a matter of patching it to return the same value no matter what it passes out. I gather in the PC world things used to be like this twenty years ago but the ongoing cracking attempts have caused a lot of careful engineering to make the stuff as obscure as possible. The guys disassembling the compiled programs are not lay people nor are they using off the shelf debuggers or disassemblers in stock form. Specialized highly customized programs are typically used for cracking programs like Protools and Cubase etc. It took Team Air thousands of man hours to crack Cubase 5 and that's with some inside information, if you can believe what's out on the net. The time frame seems to back it up. PT 8 hasn't been cracked yet AFAIK. I haven't seen a crack of the iLok version of Ivory although the challenge response older versions have been cracked I believe. It's not something Scott could do loading cb.exe into his debugger. It used to be. But as the crackers got better and better, the guys hiding it got better and better too. It's rather depressing. And that's a better argument for free software than Stallman ever made, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#494
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
I think the current "commercial vs. free" software debate is a lot
like the "PC vs Mac" one: at the end something third will probably happen. In the case of software, I think we'll sooner or later see a public utility type distribution system emerge, like the one for water. Water used to be an pricey commodity too, like software is now, people even died in wars for it. In some remote parts of Asia water is still being sold by the bucket, I saw it with my own eyes. Wherever water became a public utility, it makes little sense to steal it anymore because the monthly bill, shared by the teaming millions, fell to a mere fraction of the original. My hunch says, something similar will happen to software too, eventually; we'll see a better distribution system, reminiscent of public utilities. Even more, with computers and networks slowly reaching the remotest parts of the planet, software retailed as a utility have the potential to replace oil as the true global "currency". Imagine that, human thinking finally valued high. The movie industry will have a crisis, how can they produce "smartout at OK Corral" movies? :-) And that's a better argument for free software than Stallman ever made, too. --scott |
#495
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Is Linux A Feasible Platofrm For Professional DAW work ?
Keoki wrote:
I think the current "commercial vs. free" software debate is a lot like the "PC vs Mac" one: at the end something third will probably happen. In the case of software, I think we'll sooner or later see a public utility type distribution system emerge, like the one for water. Water used to be an pricey commodity too, like software is now, people even died in wars for it. In some remote parts of Asia water is still being sold by the bucket, I saw it with my own eyes. Wherever water became a public utility, it makes little sense to steal it anymore because the monthly bill, shared by the teaming millions, fell to a mere fraction of the original. My hunch says, something similar will happen to software too, eventually; we'll see a better distribution system, reminiscent of public utilities. Even more, with computers and networks slowly reaching the remotest parts of the planet, software retailed as a utility have the potential to replace oil as the true global "currency". Imagine that, human thinking finally valued high. The movie industry will have a crisis, how can they produce "smartout at OK Corral" movies? :-) Imagine there's no software, it's easy if you try/No OS to cost us, no MS at Fry's... ---Jeff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Linux is More than Ready For Professional Audio. Here is Proof! | Pro Audio | |||
Linux audio applications ARE PROFESSIONAL! | Pro Audio | |||
Linux and PROFESSIONAL AUDIO?? "I have no professional training" | Pro Audio | |||
Linux Used In a Professional Setting. Here is an Example!!!!!!!!!!! | Pro Audio |