Studio Dumps Windows For Linux.

[Franz LeYam]

http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
to-linux-a-sound-decision

"But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of both
applications and operating system, and given the level of use he was
putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a year. The
software also imposed severe limitations on creativity. All this time, he
kept track of developments in audio software for Linux through the
website of Dave Phillips, whom he describes as "one of the great movers
and shakers in Linux audio."

Linux RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!
Great job dude!
Why pay for software when there is Linux for free?

I'm trying to sell my Protools 9 software on ebay and nobody seems to
want it.
They must have discovered Linux.

BTW Dave Phillips ROCKS!!!!!!!
A new sound!

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

flatfish+++ wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:16:13 +0000 (UTC), Franz LeYam wrote:

>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
>> to-linux-a-sound-decision
>
>> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
>> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of
>> both applications and operating system, and given the level of use
>> he was putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a
>> year.

Read that aloud to yourself, listen to its actual content, it suggests that
hours of use makes software crash as if the code wears. That is utter
technical nonsense.

Was he browsing the internet via his daw? - there were more vira around back
in the days of win9x than most people were aware of. It is my
(it)professional opinion that undetected virus infections were the general
cause of the often perceived need of re-installing win9x every three months.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Alan[_3_]]

On 11/06/2011 12:16 PM, Franz LeYam wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
> to-linux-a-sound-decision
>
> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of both
> applications and operating system, and given the level of use he was
> putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a year. The
> software also imposed severe limitations on creativity. All this time, he
> kept track of developments in audio software for Linux through the
> website of Dave Phillips, whom he describes as "one of the great movers
> and shakers in Linux audio."
>
> Linux RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!
> Great job dude!
> Why pay for software when there is Linux for free?
>
> I'm trying to sell my Protools 9 software on ebay and nobody seems to
> want it.
> They must have discovered Linux.
>
> BTW Dave Phillips ROCKS!!!!!!!
> A new sound!

That article is very old hat. Linux is very useful to many people for
many things but ramming it down our throats here serves no useful
purpose. Think of it this way. If I demanded to know what brand of
shovel my plumber used, my sewer would remain blocked and it would be my
own silly fault.

Alan

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> flatfish+++ wrote:

>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:16:13 +0000 (UTC), Franz LeYam wrote:

>>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
>>> to-linux-a-sound-decision

>>> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move.
>>> His Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes
>>> of both applications and operating system, and given the level of
>>> use he was putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least
>>> twice a year.

> Read that aloud to yourself, listen to its actual content, it
> suggests that hours of use makes software crash as if the code wears.
> That is utter technical nonsense.

> Was he browsing the internet via his daw?

Artictle on itwire.com linked to above confirms that indeed he was.

Next.

Kind regards

Peter Larse


- there were more vira
> around back in the days of win9x than most people were aware of. It
> is my (it)professional opinion that undetected virus infections were
> the general cause of the often perceived need of re-installing win9x
> every three months.
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter Larsen > wrote:
>flatfish+++ wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 02:16:13 +0000 (UTC), Franz LeYam wrote:
>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
>>> to-linux-a-sound-decision
>>
>>> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
>>> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of
>>> both applications and operating system, and given the level of use
>>> he was putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a
>>> year.
>
>Read that aloud to yourself, listen to its actual content, it suggests that
>hours of use makes software crash as if the code wears. That is utter
>technical nonsense.

That's because it's a troll deliberately designed to make you pay attention
to Flatfish.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

Yawn.
Here we go again.


Poly

[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Jun 11, 2:44*am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:

>
> >> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
> >> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of
> >> both applications and operating system, and given the level of use
> >> he was putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a
> >> year.
>
> Read that aloud to yourself, listen to its actual content, it suggests that
> hours of use makes software crash as if the code wears. That is utter
> technical nonsense.
>
I don't like anti-Windows propaganda either, but I
think he's talking about installs and uninstalls of applications...
That will definitely screw up a Windows registry over time.

I have never used Linux, but I don't think it has a registry.
Isn't an install of a Linux app essentially a copy and paste
operation?
I can see where that would make uninstalls a lot less traumatic to the
system.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Jonathan wrote:

> On Jun 11, 2:44 am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:

>> Read that aloud to yourself, listen to its actual content, it
>> suggests that hours of use makes software crash as if the code
>> wears. That is utter technical nonsense.

> I don't like anti-Windows propaganda either, but I
> think he's talking about installs and uninstalls of applications...
> That will definitely screw up a Windows registry over time.

Generally no.

Some programs, one example being Firefox when I tested it in an early
version, do however not uninstall cleanly. I had to re-link the filetypes
for web manually and such problems could entrap people into using what IS
likely to cause registry-problems, namely: registry problem fixing
programmes. I had to restore a box from backup after trying one such
program.

It is a confirmed issue that registry loading will get slower as the
registry grows because it is not defragged in normal drive defragging. The
solution is to install pagedefrag, which also defrags pagefile and
hibernationfile, if any. See; http://microsoft/sysinternals ... as I recall
the link without verifying. I haven't checked whether they integrated it
into 7.

> I have never used Linux, but I don't think it has a registry.
> Isn't an install of a Linux app essentially a copy and paste
> operation?

So can installing a program on a windows box be.

> I can see where that would make uninstalls a lot less traumatic to the
> system.

The windows registry is a single point of failure, but also well protected.
You are right that it is a complicated way to solve the issue of making
applicatios aware of avaiable resources. If you want to point your finger at
a single cause of windows problems, including registry problems, it is users
that do not have a proper backup stategy. The next largest cause is users
that actually believe in the multitasking advertisements ....

I much prefer AmigaOS over windows, and had much preferred if Microsoft had
bought it and implemented some of its smart solutions, above all I miss the
"assign" command. And Cygnus Ed, a third party text- and programmers editor
able to do rectangular cuts and pastes anywhere in a text.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

Jonathan > wrote:
>I don't like anti-Windows propaganda either, but I
>think he's talking about installs and uninstalls of applications...
>That will definitely screw up a Windows registry over time.

"Whenever you can't figure out what is wrong, tell them their registry is
corrupted. Because it always is, and hell, that might have something to
do with it."
-- Mr. Le, PC Tech

The issues with registry getting out of synch are pretty common and generally
the result of poor coding.

>I have never used Linux, but I don't think it has a registry.
>Isn't an install of a Linux app essentially a copy and paste
>operation?

Pretty much. With Unix systems, everything is in the filesystem, there is
no information the operating system sees outside of the filesystem.

Starting in the early 1990s, Unix systems started getting package managers.
The package manager keeps track of installed OS and applications files,
so you know where everything came from, when it got installed, and what
package it goes to. You can install one package and it will automatically
figure out if you have the other packages required to use that one. This
actually goes a long way toward making installation, de-installation, and
upgrades easy. It also makes OS patching easy.

Just about every Unix system you'll see today uses a package manager
(although OSX only uses it for the OS, not for applications, and most
of the OS is shipped as one big package, so it's currently pretty useless).
But every distribution uses a different package management system, and
people fight about which one is better. It doesn't really matter since
they are all better than none.

When package management first came out, I was strongly against it, since
I worried about the local database getting out of synch. In practice this
is a total non-issue and package management turns out to be a huge time
saver.
--scott

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...

>I don't like anti-Windows propaganda either,

I don't like anti-OS propaganda, because most of it that I've seen has been
based on misapprehensions on the part of the person doing the complaining.

> but think he's talking about installs and uninstalls of applications...
> That will definitely screw up a Windows registry over time.

The problem here is that both the install and the uninstall are up to the
people who write the application.

Setup programs can be very problematical because they need to have close to
a free reign over much of the OS in order to do what they do.

> I have never used Linux, but I don't think it has a registry.

I would hope that it does have a registry, because a registry is superior to
the alternative, which is no registry.

One of the leading alternatives to a registry is maintaining INI files.
Remember that?

> Isn't an install of a Linux app essentially a copy and paste operation?

I can't imagine how that could true in general.

> I can see where that would make uninstalls a lot less traumatic to the
> system.

It is a trade off. If you limit the actions that a setup program can do,
then you limit the kind of software that can be installed. Part of the
problem is that controlling what a setup program can do requires
near-perfect foreknowlege of things that can't be anticipated with any
degree of precision.

[lememynap]

just read the thread! great work.

[geoff]

Peter Larsen wrote:

> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larse

Pete L'arse ?!!!!

(_)*(_)

geoff

[geoff]

Franz LeYam wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
> to-linux-a-sound-decision
>
> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of both
> applications and operating system, and given the level of use he was
> putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a year.
> The software also imposed severe limitations on creativity. All this
> time, he kept track of developments in audio software for Linux
> through the website of Dave Phillips, whom he describes as "one of
> the great movers and shakers in Linux audio."
>
> Linux RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!
> Great job dude!
> Why pay for software when there is Linux for free?
>
> I'm trying to sell my Protools 9 software on ebay and nobody seems to
> want it.
> They must have discovered Linux.
>
> BTW Dave Phillips ROCKS!!!!!!!
> A new sound!

Yep, that's better religon than Apple even ...

geoff

[yrret]

With shrinking computers and cheap screens do you imagine what we call a DAW
will probably disappear into mixing desks big and small?

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jonathan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I don't like anti-Windows propaganda either,
>
> I don't like anti-OS propaganda, because most of it that I've seen has
> been based on misapprehensions on the part of the person doing the
> complaining.
>
>> but think he's talking about installs and uninstalls of applications...
>> That will definitely screw up a Windows registry over time.
>
> The problem here is that both the install and the uninstall are up to the
> people who write the application.
>
> Setup programs can be very problematical because they need to have close
> to a free reign over much of the OS in order to do what they do.
>
>> I have never used Linux, but I don't think it has a registry.
>
> I would hope that it does have a registry, because a registry is superior
> to the alternative, which is no registry.
>
> One of the leading alternatives to a registry is maintaining INI files.
> Remember that?
>
>> Isn't an install of a Linux app essentially a copy and paste operation?
>
> I can't imagine how that could true in general.
>
>> I can see where that would make uninstalls a lot less traumatic to the
>> system.
>
> It is a trade off. If you limit the actions that a setup program can do,
> then you limit the kind of software that can be installed. Part of the
> problem is that controlling what a setup program can do requires
> near-perfect foreknowlege of things that can't be anticipated with any
> degree of precision.
>
>
>
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"yrret" > wrote in message
...

> With shrinking computers and cheap screens do you imagine what we call a
> DAW will probably disappear into mixing desks big and small?

I think that we will first have mixers that will record a lot of tracks (say
1 track per input) onto removable digital media, which may well be followed
by mixers with all the other things that we currently find in a DAW.

The driving force behind this kind of thing is probably limited by the
facilities people decide to put on a SOC (system on a chip).

Right now there are a number of SOCs with at least one pair of fairly
competent DACs and at least one pair of fairly competent ADCs. The SOC's
on-chip processor might have 500 mips and at least 128 megabytes of RAM and
maybe 512 megabytes of PROM. One could shoehorn a fairly competent
2-channel DAW into that kind of hardware if you had a big enough display to
actually control it.

I have a $30 GPS with a 4.3" touchscreen, and that could be enough screen to
actually be a fairly comfortable simple DAW, particularly if there was a
HDMI port for a larger display. 5 years ago this collection of hardware was
at or slightly beyond the SOTA. Some of the on-chip components would have
had to be separate chips.

I suspect that much progress in this area is waiting on the forthcoming
expiration of a number of patents relating to digital consoles. There would
be no technical reason to imbed a DAW in a console without making the
console as digital as possible.

I think that simply being able to work with 4 truely independent mic
channels in a popular-priced device would be a big breakthrough.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> With shrinking computers and cheap screens do you imagine what we call a
>> DAW will probably disappear into mixing desks big and small?
>
> I think that we will first have mixers that will record a lot of tracks (say
> 1 track per input) onto removable digital media, which may well be followed
> by mixers with all the other things that we currently find in a DAW.
>
> The driving force behind this kind of thing is probably limited by the
> facilities people decide to put on a SOC (system on a chip).
>

The economics of SOCs are dismal. The economics of GPP systems that
use standard peripherals are not so dismal. This difference
is pointed right at the weak spot in getting products to market.

You can design around an SOC only if you're going to sell enough
units to justify the additional NRE plus the cost of financing the
NRE.

> Right now there are a number of SOCs with at least one pair of fairly
> competent DACs and at least one pair of fairly competent ADCs. The SOC's
> on-chip processor might have 500 mips and at least 128 megabytes of RAM and
> maybe 512 megabytes of PROM. One could shoehorn a fairly competent
> 2-channel DAW into that kind of hardware if you had a big enough display to
> actually control it.
>
> I have a $30 GPS with a 4.3" touchscreen, and that could be enough screen to
> actually be a fairly comfortable simple DAW, particularly if there was a
> HDMI port for a larger display. 5 years ago this collection of hardware was
> at or slightly beyond the SOTA. Some of the on-chip components would have
> had to be separate chips.
>

I don't see how that's any improvement over say, a Fostex VF16 or a
full-size desktop DAW. The problem with the VF16 should be obvious -
once they go out of production, that's it.

> I suspect that much progress in this area is waiting on the forthcoming
> expiration of a number of patents relating to digital consoles. There would
> be no technical reason to imbed a DAW in a console without making the
> console as digital as possible.
>

Er... okay. I don't see any need for that at all, but that's just IMO.
Maybe it's just me, but you're pretty much constrained to an Allen and
Heath ZED sized thing to do live multitrack. You can't reduce
the connector size more than that.

For stuff where an H4 would work... those already exist.

> I think that simply being able to work with 4 truely independent mic
> channels in a popular-priced device would be a big breakthrough.
>
>

But popular with whom? There's no market for cheap recorders beyond as
toys, to get stuff onto Youtube. People don't have the $500 for a live
recording. They'd rather spend it on a recorder, then let the
recorder gather dust.

For people doing real work in a home studio, ProTools or Sonar
already exists.

--
Les Cargill

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> With shrinking computers and cheap screens do you imagine what we call a
>>> DAW will probably disappear into mixing desks big and small?
>>
>> I think that we will first have mixers that will record a lot of tracks
>> (say
>> 1 track per input) onto removable digital media, which may well be
>> followed
>> by mixers with all the other things that we currently find in a DAW.
>>
>> The driving force behind this kind of thing is probably limited by the
>> facilities people decide to put on a SOC (system on a chip).
>>
>
> The economics of SOCs are dismal. The economics of GPP systems that
> use standard peripherals are not so dismal. This difference
> is pointed right at the weak spot in getting products to market.

Your statement makes no sense to me since the relevant literature commonly
treats GPPs as a subset of the class of devices known as SOCs.

[High Plains Thumper[_2_]]

Flatfish nymshifting as Franz LeYam wrote:
> http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-
> to-linux-a-sound-decision
>
> "But it took seven years before Beasley decided to make the move. His
> Windows set-up caused him constant headaches, with the crashes of both
> applications and operating system, and given the level of use he was
> putting his machines to, he had to reinstall at least twice a year. The
> software also imposed severe limitations on creativity. All this time, he
> kept track of developments in audio software for Linux through the
> website of Dave Phillips, whom he describes as "one of the great movers
> and shakers in Linux audio."
>
> Linux RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!
> Great job dude!
> Why pay for software when there is Linux for free?
>
> I'm trying to sell my Protools 9 software on ebay and nobody seems to
> want it.
> They must have discovered Linux.
>
> BTW Dave Phillips ROCKS!!!!!!!
> A new sound!

NNTP-Posting-Host: D0RC06drwH9yOJK5OoENPw.user.speranza.aioe.org

Just another flatfish troll. Previous troll posts:

George >: "I'm looking at moving my current
mastering facility from Protools/Sequoia to a total Harrison based Linux
system. Any advice is appreciated. ~~hpt" 2 Apr 2011, Subject: Migrating
From Protools To Linux. Advice Needed.

NNTP-Posting-Host: D0RC06drwH9yOJK5OoENPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Message-ID: >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/de8933330e6e3410

Rick >: "I doubt you will so I will tell you to
get ****ing lost right now you libelous pile of ****. If you don't, your
employer will be contacted and informed of you activities on company
time. 20 Apr 2011, Subject: Re: TROLL ALERT - STALKER Migrating From
Protools To Linux

NNTP-Posting-Host: D0RC06drwH9yOJK5OoENPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Message-ID: >
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/d5f04269c8420849

Anna Banger: "With Wendy at the whorehouse and [Homer] smoking grass,
HPT had just settled down for a nice piece of ass. When out on the lawn
George heard such a clatter, he got off his sister to see what was the
matter. And what to his stoned-out eyes should appear, but a ****ty old
sleigh and eight ****ing reindeer. (Obviously a Linux model sifted from
the garbage bin) With a dirty old man who was beating his dick, George
knew in a moment, it must be St. Nick. (George Hostler is an ex'spurt in
the area of dicks) [...] He swore and cursed as he rode out of sight
Linux sucks dick,,, and **** on you freetards this cold xmas nite." 24
Dec 2010, Subject "The Night Before Freetard Xmas...."

NNTP-Posting-Host: D0RC06drwH9yOJK5OoENPw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Message-ID: >
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c248af66c880d888

--
HPT