http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!), there is
no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!)

Yup, that's what we in rec.audio.pro call a real PROFESSIONAL I/O card.


no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

Linux is for hobbyists and major corporations with IT departments.
Others manage to get work done with other tools and survive.

Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!),

Is that supposed to impress ?

there is
no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

You mean it's gradually catching up ?

Graham

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:38 -0500, Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!), there is
no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

Linux?

You're kidding right?

Look dude, if you want to run a server someplace, hide it in a closet and
impress your boss that it cost you zero dollars to implement (ignoring the
6 months of torture it took for you to make it work), then Linux is for
you.

For me?

A couple of C-notes for Win2003 server, Nuendo on an RME card fits the
*Bill*, pun intended.

BTW if you think a Soundblaster 24 is the cat's meow, you need a few new
cats and more than likely a new set of ears as well.
That card sucks.

My advice?

Linux is a joke for any type of mainstream multimedia, desktop type work.
Sure Disney/Pixar uses it.
Why not ask them to sell you the programs they use........

Get it?

No, you're a Linux kook, so I doubt you will.

"Rocky Gilmartin" wrote in message
...
industry standard digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24
BITS!!),
wow! 24 bits! All at once?

there is no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems
like ProTools.

I'm speechless.



Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

On comp.os.linux.misc, in ,
"Rocky Gilmartin" wrote:

http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry
standard digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit
(YES!! 24 BITS!!), there is no longer a reason to stick with
locked in propriatory systems like ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

Great. Keep it up, and pretty soon no one will be able to
tell the difference between Linux and Windows.

Alan

--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
see also: links.html and killfile.html

"Rocky Gilmartin" wrote in message
...
http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!), there is
no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!


Oh wow. Linux must be pro now. Creative SoB !!!

geoff

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

I had clients ask. In order to ensure that I didn't have one.

geoff

PS This must really be a troll, but with Liniots is really is hard to tell.
I mean Dynabolic - that has to be a ****-take , no ?

"Rocky Gilmartin" wrote in message
...
http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!),

to which professional industry are you referring? some professionals can
occasionally accomplish their objectives with toys, however most prefer to
use tools.


there is no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems
like
ProTools.

except it is the recording industry standard?

anyone here use PT for live work? if so what?

"Geoff@home" wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

I had clients ask. In order to ensure that I didn't have one.

LOL ! Mind you - there *are* worse ! :-(

geoff

PS This must really be a troll, but with Liniots is really is hard to tell.
I mean Dynabolic - that has to be a ****-take , no ?

Given the penguin ? Are you sure ?

Graham

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!)

Yup, that's what we in rec.audio.pro call a real PROFESSIONAL I/O card.


no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

Linux is for hobbyists and major corporations with IT departments.
Others manage to get work done with other tools and survive.


In theory Linux would be a good choice a DAW platform, the theory being that
it's far more efficient than windows as an OS so you could work with a lot
more tracks for any given level of hardware.

In reality however, hardware advances have pretty much made it a moot point
now. You don't have to get too close to the cutting edge to get a platform
that can support several dozens of tracks, and even if you had free software
that did everything you needed you'd still have the cost of the I/O
hardware, which for dozens of tracks is far more than the platform, OS and
software combined.

Linux is literally ten years too late to be the killer platform for music
production. Had it been at this point ten years ago it might have made a
strong alternative to Mac, but now it's just a joke in this role. I do a lot
of Linux development so I'm hardly a shill for Windoze, but in this role
Linux is way too little way too late.

Sean

Sean Conolly wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!)

Yup, that's what we in rec.audio.pro call a real PROFESSIONAL I/O card.


no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

Linux is for hobbyists and major corporations with IT departments.
Others manage to get work done with other tools and survive.

In theory Linux would be a good choice a DAW platform, the theory being that
it's far more efficient than windows as an OS so you could work with a lot
more tracks for any given level of hardware.

In reality however, hardware advances have pretty much made it a moot point
now. You don't have to get too close to the cutting edge to get a platform
that can support several dozens of tracks, and even if you had free software
that did everything you needed you'd still have the cost of the I/O
hardware, which for dozens of tracks is far more than the platform, OS and
software combined.

Linux is literally ten years too late to be the killer platform for music
production. Had it been at this point ten years ago it might have made a
strong alternative to Mac, but now it's just a joke in this role. I do a lot
of Linux development so I'm hardly a shill for Windoze, but in this role
Linux is way too little way too late.

Sean

Good point Sean.

A long time back I was involved in technical support for the Lightworks
non-linear video / film editing system. It briefly trounced the market leader (
Avid ) on account of lean and fit software which ran in *32 bit DOS* on a 33MHz
486 ! It performed bettter if you upgraded the CPU but nevertheless it did run
with a 33MHz processor.

Today's processing horsepower allows the OS to be a waste of space and *still*
it doesn't matter. Linux fans are missing the point. What's most important is
*support* !

Graham

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:12:38 -0500, Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!), there is
no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

As a Linux user, I am very sorry to have to say that I don't believe
Linux is a practical platform for audio or will become one in the
foreseeable future. As a businessman, I am equally sorry, because I
considered, and had to abandon, the idea of selling specially outfitted
Linux audio workstations. As far as I can tell, the technology isn't there
and the market isn't big enough. I currently use Windows for my music
software.

I am on a Linux box as I write this and have been using Linux for everyday
work for the better part of a decade, but I can assure you, Linux is not
now, nor ever has, moved as fast as a jack-rabbit. In my opinion, Linux
and its major applications are, by a wide margin, the slowest moving OS
technology to ever gain wide use. The most obvious is the OS kernel
itself. Also, the gui technology has been remarkably slow. The gtk
toolkit, despite being the last major gui toolkit developed, and
introduced about 20 years after the first such toolkits appeared, has
taken almost 10 years to reach its present state of rather impoverished
features and inconsistent API, and has introduced a stage of
backward incompatible releases to boot. It is unclear whether the Gnome
environment, now almost 10 years old, has yet reached the level of Windows
95, which was the last major commercial OS to acquire decent gui
technology. No commercial gui environment ever required more than 2 years
for its first mature release (including Amiga, OS/2, Windows 95, MacOS,
Java,BeOS). Also, Gnome is unfortunately highly inefficient. I believe
that current versions of Linux/Gnome are by far the most inefficient OS
environment ever produced. Gnome and its applications require enormous
memory and CPU resources to run - in the hundreds of MB for even a rather
spare environment. This is certainly relevant for audio software, which
is intrinsically resource intensive. I don't believe hardware has really
made this irrelevant yet, because of how extreme the situation is under
Gnome.

The slow speed of Linux development also certainly applies in the
area of audio and midi technology, which I followed from the mid-1990s
until a couple of years ago, when I essentially gave up hope. During the
1990s, the major music application for Linux was the midi
sequencer RoseGarden. Four individuals were working on it. From about
1996 until 2001 or so, if I remember, they could not produce a usable
piece of software. They started, failed, and restarted with a different
plan, so many times it became almost comic (if it weren't so sad). One of
their failures resulted from losing all of their source code in a hard
disk crash.

A while ago I decided to give the current state of audio software
under Linux a try. Getting low latency required installing a specially
modified kernel. I was unable to test one of the leading midi programs
because it crashed as soon as I entered the name of a midi file in
its file open dialog box. I was unable to find even a basic wave editing
program that was stable enough and usable enough to rely upon.
RoseGarden's score typesetting was based on a TeX (if you don't know
what TeX is, believe me, you don't want to know) macro package which
in my opinion is a dead end with no hope of developing into a first
rate system. I could go on and on but I think I have made my point.

The most important thing you need to consider is that making music is a
very complex business. Many different kinds of things need to interface
together. And everything needs to be as close as possible to 100% in
usability, documentation, reliability, and features. This is exactly
the kind of application where Linux falls down. If a system is even 99%,
users are going to be ****ed off. And Linux isn't even close to 99% most
of the time. It's more like 90%, or even 80% or less, in my view.
Even the best commercial software and hardware available today is a major
investment to use. I often find myself ready to hurl my monitor across the
room when a glitch in Sonar zaps me out of the zone, and I lose my
inspiration. I wouldn't even consider relying on Linux software for
something like this.

In comp.os.linux.misc Rocky Gilmartin :
http://www.dynebolic.org/index.php?show=available

[..]

Let's see, the announcement is rather old (15 march 2005)

- You are using a pretty fresh google throw away account
- You posted already to the home of trolls:
(comp.os.linux.advocacy)
- You are using Outcrap to bring us this amazing message

Looks like a simple google troll to me.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 74: You're out of memory

Geoff@home wrote:

PS This must really be a troll, but with Liniots is really is hard to tell.
I mean Dynabolic - that has to be a ****-take , no ?

That name comes up a lot when someone spews the benefits of a Linux
audio sysetm. Maybe it all comes from the same person.

Sean Conolly wrote:

Linux is literally ten years too late to be the killer platform for music
production. Had it been at this point ten years ago it might have made a
strong alternative to Mac, but now it's just a joke in this role. I do a lot
of Linux development so I'm hardly a shill for Windoze, but in this role
Linux is way too little way too late.

You can say the same thing about Irix as well. SGI really had an opening
into the audio market when it was much smaller.... and then they blew it.
In part this was because they didn't treat Sonic so well, and in part because
they had some support issues.

You can even say the same thing about BeOS.... it would sure be nice to
have actual realtime extensions for audio applications.

Either way, I really wish Flatfish would stop it with the stupid Linux
and anti-Linux trolls, and I wish people here would stop replying to them
because it just encourages the idiot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers wrote:
Geoff@home wrote:

PS This must really be a troll, but with Liniots is really is hard to tell.
I mean Dynabolic - that has to be a ****-take , no ?

That name comes up a lot when someone spews the benefits of a Linux
audio sysetm. Maybe it all comes from the same person.

It does, yes. Flatfish has been responsible for every single one of the
Linux and anti-Linux trolls that turn up here, and he is often responsible
for both sides of the argument. This is an attempt to goad people into
flaming.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:16:54 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.com...

Rocky Gilmartin wrote:

And now with ALSA FULLY SUPPORTING the professional, industry standard
digital I/O card, Creative SoundBlaster 24 bit (YES!! 24 BITS!!)

Yup, that's what we in rec.audio.pro call a real PROFESSIONAL I/O card.


no longer a reason to stick with locked in propriatory systems like
ProTools.

Nope, not at all. At least not if you don't need paying clients who ask
for it by name. Nobody's ever called the studio asking "Do you use
Linux?" And I'm not sure what to think if someone called and asked if I
had a professional SoundBlaster I/O?

Linux is for hobbyists and major corporations with IT departments.
Others manage to get work done with other tools and survive.


In theory Linux would be a good choice a DAW platform, the theory being that
it's far more efficient than windows as an OS so you could work with a lot
more tracks for any given level of hardware.

I have no trouble getting 30 tracks with Ardour, a Linux hard disk
recording application.
Using JACK connection kit I can manipulate effects and sync to Rosegarden
my MIDI sequencer program.



In reality however, hardware advances have pretty much made it a moot point
now. You don't have to get too close to the cutting edge to get a platform
that can support several dozens of tracks, and even if you had free software
that did everything you needed you'd still have the cost of the I/O
hardware, which for dozens of tracks is far more than the platform, OS and
software combined.

I can burn CD's while watching streaming videos and never burn a coaster.
Try that with Windows and see what happens!


Linux is literally ten years too late to be the killer platform for music
production. Had it been at this point ten years ago it might have made a
strong alternative to Mac, but now it's just a joke in this role. I do a lot
of Linux development so I'm hardly a shill for Windoze, but in this role
Linux is way too little way too late.

Linux is ahead of Windows in terms of technology, but Windows has the edge
in terms of market.
However that doesn't make it better.

Have you ever tried some of the applications included with dynebolic?
They are pretty slick!

I'm not claiming that Linux can replace a Protools rig, but it can replace
Sonar or Cubase/Nuendo and for a lot less money.

All linux needs is for people to give it a chance instead of just dissing
it without ever trying it.


Sean

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:29:46 -0700, Hamad bin Turki Salami wrote:


As a Linux user, I am very sorry to have to say that I don't believe
Linux is a practical platform for audio or will become one in the
foreseeable future.


Tell that to Disney and Pixar, both of which have switched their movie
making studios to Linux.
That seems like a decent plug for Linux doesn't it?
Why would they use something that didn't work?


As a businessman, I am equally sorry, because I
considered, and had to abandon, the idea of selling specially outfitted
Linux audio workstations. As far as I can tell, the technology isn't there
and the market isn't big enough. I currently use Windows for my music
software.

Maybe you just aren't a good enough businessman?
How long ago did you try and do this, because Linux has matured rapidly in
the last 2 years while Windows has remained static.


I am on a Linux box as I write this and have been using Linux for everyday
work for the better part of a decade, but I can assure you, Linux is not
now, nor ever has, moved as fast as a jack-rabbit.

Sounds like you are doing something wrong?
What distribution are you using?
Have you tried Debian or Slackware?
They are very fast and lean.


In my opinion, Linux
and its major applications are, by a wide margin, the slowest moving OS
technology to ever gain wide use. The most obvious is the OS kernel
itself.

I disagree.
The 2.6 kernel is very fast and has low latency built in so the Morton
patches are not needed.


Also, the gui technology has been remarkably slow. The gtk
toolkit, despite being the last major gui toolkit developed, and
introduced about 20 years after the first such toolkits appeared, has
taken almost 10 years to reach its present state of rather impoverished
features and inconsistent API, and has introduced a stage of
backward incompatible releases to boot.

What are you talking about?
It sounds to me like you have some serious configuration errors in your
setup because Linux runs very fast for me on an AMD 1800+
I do have one gig of memory though.


It is unclear whether the Gnome
environment, now almost 10 years old, has yet reached the level of Windows
95, which was the last major commercial OS to acquire decent gui
technology. No commercial gui environment ever required more than 2 years
for its first mature release (including Amiga, OS/2, Windows 95, MacOS,
Java,BeOS).

I do agree with you about gnome.
I find gnome to be terrible and prefer windowmaker or even kde to gnome.

Also, Gnome is unfortunately highly inefficient. I believe
that current versions of Linux/Gnome are by far the most inefficient OS
environment ever produced. Gnome and its applications require enormous
memory and CPU resources to run - in the hundreds of MB for even a rather
spare environment.

So run blackbox, kde, windowmaker or enlightenment.
That's the beauty of Linux, you have a choice.



This is certainly relevant for audio software, which
is intrinsically resource intensive. I don't believe hardware has really
made this irrelevant yet, because of how extreme the situation is under
Gnome.

I get more tracks with windowmaker than I do with gnome so some of what
you say I agree with.
But, you do have a choice.


The slow speed of Linux development also certainly applies in the
area of audio and midi technology, which I followed from the mid-1990s
until a couple of years ago, when I essentially gave up hope. During the
1990s, the major music application for Linux was the midi
sequencer RoseGarden. Four individuals were working on it. From about
1996 until 2001 or so, if I remember, they could not produce a usable
piece of software. They started, failed, and restarted with a different
plan, so many times it became almost comic (if it weren't so sad). One of
their failures resulted from losing all of their source code in a hard
disk crash.

Rosegarden has come a long, long way since then.
It's just as good as Cubase or Sonar.


A while ago I decided to give the current state of audio software
under Linux a try. Getting low latency required installing a specially
modified kernel.

The Morton kernel is no longer needed.


I was unable to test one of the leading midi programs
because it crashed as soon as I entered the name of a midi file in
its file open dialog box.

I find that hard to believe.


I was unable to find even a basic wave editing
program that was stable enough and usable enough to rely upon.
RoseGarden's score typesetting was based on a TeX (if you don't know
what TeX is, believe me, you don't want to know) macro package which
in my opinion is a dead end with no hope of developing into a first
rate system. I could go on and on but I think I have made my point.

Audacity is a great program and just as good as Sony Soundforge.
And you don't have to worry about Sony spying on you either.


The most important thing you need to consider is that making music is a
very complex business. Many different kinds of things need to interface
together. And everything needs to be as close as possible to 100% in
usability, documentation, reliability, and features. This is exactly
the kind of application where Linux falls down. If a system is even 99%,
users are going to be ****ed off.

That's very true, especially with a client breathing down your neck.
It was also one of the reasons I use a custom built system instead of a
Dell or something like that.
Stability is everything.


And Linux isn't even close to 99% most
of the time. It's more like 90%, or even 80% or less, in my view.
Even the best commercial software and hardware available today is a major
investment to use. I often find myself ready to hurl my monitor across the
room when a glitch in Sonar zaps me out of the zone, and I lose my
inspiration. I wouldn't even consider relying on Linux software for
something like this.

I do it all the time.
I think you might have serious configuration errors with your Linux system.
Could you post the specifics and maybe we can offer some help?

Thorsten Yates

"Thorsten Yates" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:16:54 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:
Linux is ahead of Windows in terms of technology, but Windows has the edge
in terms of market.
However that doesn't make it better.

Have you ever tried some of the applications included with dynebolic?
They are pretty slick!

I'm not claiming that Linux can replace a Protools rig, but it can replace
Sonar or Cubase/Nuendo and for a lot less money.

All linux needs is for people to give it a chance instead of just dissing
it without ever trying it.


You're missing the point. The two big claims for Linux is superior
performance and low cost. My point is that superior performance doesn't mean
a lot when damn near anything can keep up with track counts you're talking
about in a non-professional setting. And the cost of the platform and the
recording hardware is considerably more than the cost of the OS and
recording software. I paid a lot more for my MOTU than I paid for the
computer I use it wirh.

Once you pull your head out of the gee-whiz factor, what do you have left?
The destop user is what Windows has been targeting for over 15 years, and
they do it very, very well. For the guy who cares a lot more about his time
than what's under the hood of his system, there's just no reason at all to
use Linux for an audio suite. The final killer is the tools and plugins
available under windows, there's probably thousands of plugins available and
a lot of them are free if want to weed through the crap to find the gems.

I'm sorry, but arguing Linux vs. Windows for a recording platform is like
arguing Betamax vs. VHS. Technically better in some aspects does not win
over good enough and widely accepted.

Sean

ps - I use RH AS at work on a half-dozen servers, debian for my hosted
web-server, WhiteBox 4.0 for the household internet browsing system, Win98
on my recording platform, and WinXP on my work desktop. Just to show that
I'm not biased against Linux overall.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:39:57 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:


You're missing the point. The two big claims for Linux is superior
performance and low cost.

As well as choice and freedom from Mircroslops snares.


My point is that superior performance doesn't mean
a lot when damn near anything can keep up with track counts you're talking
about in a non-professional setting. And the cost of the platform and the
recording hardware is considerably more than the cost of the OS and
recording software. I paid a lot more for my MOTU than I paid for the
computer I use it wirh.

What about stability?
Linux is far more stable than Windows which has a tendency to crap out,
get bogged down with spyware/virii/trojans.
What about security?


Once you pull your head out of the gee-whiz factor, what do you have left?

A stable, secure system that requires little or no fiddling with to keep
running.
The same can't be said of Windows.

The destop user is what Windows has been targeting for over 15 years, and
they do it very, very well.

Mostly because of strongarm tactics and an illegal monopoly.
If Linux and Windows started on equal ground, which one do you think we
would be using now?

For the guy who cares a lot more about his time
than what's under the hood of his system, there's just no reason at all to
use Linux for an audio suite.

I care about my time and I find that I have to do much less to my linux
systems than to my Windows systems.


The final killer is the tools and plugins
available under windows, there's probably thousands of plugins available and
a lot of them are free if want to weed through the crap to find the gems.

Audacity comes with a ton of plugins and many of them are quite good.


I'm sorry, but arguing Linux vs. Windows for a recording platform is like
arguing Betamax vs. VHS. Technically better in some aspects does not win
over good enough and widely accepted.

Sean

I disagree.
It all depends upon what the user wants/needs and the amount of time the
person is willing to invest.
I know several people using Linux in some capacity in the studio and they
seem to be doing well.

Here is a link to one studio using Linux::::

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


ps - I use RH AS at work on a half-dozen servers, debian for my hosted
web-server, WhiteBox 4.0 for the household internet browsing system, Win98
on my recording platform, and WinXP on my work desktop. Just to show that
I'm not biased against Linux overall.

Sounds kewl!

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Sean Conolly wrote:

Linux is literally ten years too late to be the killer platform for music
production. Had it been at this point ten years ago it might have made a
strong alternative to Mac, but now it's just a joke in this role. I do a
lot
of Linux development so I'm hardly a shill for Windoze, but in this role
Linux is way too little way too late.

You can say the same thing about Irix as well. SGI really had an opening
into the audio market when it was much smaller.... and then they blew it.
In part this was because they didn't treat Sonic so well, and in part
because
they had some support issues.

You can even say the same thing about BeOS.... it would sure be nice to
have actual realtime extensions for audio applications.

Years back I was using QNX a lot, back when they were still interested in
desktop applications. Very efficient RTOS, would have made a great DAW
platform, at the time.


Either way, I really wish Flatfish would stop it with the stupid Linux
and anti-Linux trolls, and I wish people here would stop replying to them
because it just encourages the idiot.

Sorry, I try to keep it to a minimum and I don't cross-post.

Sean

This here might be besides the subject, but it is still something worth
remembering when discussing linux in music production.

Linux is being succesfully embedded in many types of tools, musical
instruments included. For that particular kind of use, linux is definitely
better suited than windows, due to its flexibility and lack of licensing
fees.

The Korg OASYS workstation has Linux as OS. The OASYS is an ambitious
project, so the potential of Linux as a platform for professional
music making is definitely great.

Also, the rackmount VST hosts Receptor and Plugzilla both run on Linux.

However, these are integrated products put together by technology
professionals. Getting a bunch of software to do the things you want in
your own studio might prove problematic. Setting up a couple of softsynths
on a Linux laptop ought to be a more rewarding undertaking for those who
like tweaking things.

M.J.

In article ,
Thorsten Yates wrote:
As a Linux user, I am very sorry to have to say that I don't believe
Linux is a practical platform for audio or will become one in the
foreseeable future.


Tell that to Disney and Pixar, both of which have switched their movie
making studios to Linux.

Where did you hear that they switched to Linux for audio? All the news
stories I've seen had them switching to Linux for animation or graphics,
and for rendering.


--
--Tim Smith

"Thorsten Yates" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies when he ventured forth
on 2005-12-27, commmitted his life to the whims of Google, and espoused:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:39:57 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:


You're missing the point. The two big claims for Linux is superior
performance and low cost.

As well as choice and freedom from Mircroslops snares.


My point is that superior performance doesn't mean
a lot when damn near anything can keep up with track counts you're talking
about in a non-professional setting. And the cost of the platform and the
recording hardware is considerably more than the cost of the OS and
recording software. I paid a lot more for my MOTU than I paid for the
computer I use it wirh.

What about stability?
Linux is far more stable than Windows which has a tendency to crap out,
get bogged down with spyware/virii/trojans.
What about security?

Windows can be secure enough with a competent sysadmin or basic
firewall/AV procedures in place.



Once you pull your head out of the gee-whiz factor, what do you have left?

A stable, secure system that requires little or no fiddling with to keep
running.
The same can't be said of Windows.

The destop user is what Windows has been targeting for over 15 years, and
they do it very, very well.

Mostly because of strongarm tactics and an illegal monopoly.
If Linux and Windows started on equal ground, which one do you think we
would be using now?

But they are not. And Linux suks for gaming : a *big* seller of PCs is
their gaming capability.


For the guy who cares a lot more about his time
than what's under the hood of his system, there's just no reason at all to
use Linux for an audio suite.

I care about my time and I find that I have to do much less to my linux
systems than to my Windows systems.


Like what? I never do anything to my Windows : because you cant. I
spend far more time tinkering with Linux (often with fatal results)
because "I can".


The final killer is the tools and plugins
available under windows, there's probably thousands of plugins available and
a lot of them are free if want to weed through the crap to find the gems.

Audacity comes with a ton of plugins and many of them are quite good.


I'm sorry, but arguing Linux vs. Windows for a recording platform is like
arguing Betamax vs. VHS. Technically better in some aspects does not win
over good enough and widely accepted.

Sean

I disagree.
It all depends upon what the user wants/needs and the amount of time the
person is willing to invest.

Exactly : and with linux often too much time.

I know several people using Linux in some capacity in the studio and they
seem to be doing well.

Here is a link to one studio using Linux::::

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


One studio.


ps - I use RH AS at work on a half-dozen servers, debian for my hosted
web-server, WhiteBox 4.0 for the household internet browsing system, Win98
on my recording platform, and WinXP on my work desktop. Just to show that
I'm not biased against Linux overall.

Sounds kewl!


I love Linux but it simply lacks the application base that people like
to see. I'm not saying thats good, but it is how it is.

--
"Fascinating. Want a pretzel??" : Hooper

"Thorsten Yates" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies when he ventured forth
on 2005-12-27, commmitted his life to the whims of Google, and espoused:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 03:29:46 -0700, Hamad bin Turki Salami wrote:


As a Linux user, I am very sorry to have to say that I don't believe
Linux is a practical platform for audio or will become one in the
foreseeable future.


Tell that to Disney and Pixar, both of which have switched their movie
making studios to Linux.
That seems like a decent plug for Linux doesn't it?
Why would they use something that didn't work?


As a businessman, I am equally sorry, because I
considered, and had to abandon, the idea of selling specially outfitted
Linux audio workstations. As far as I can tell, the technology isn't there
and the market isn't big enough. I currently use Windows for my music
software.

Maybe you just aren't a good enough businessman?
How long ago did you try and do this, because Linux has matured rapidly in
the last 2 years while Windows has remained static.

Because windows worked and was stable for MM apps years ago. Linux was
not. I still cant watch FS video or get HW opengl working or get any
mixers to properly control my (intermittent) sound in my linux system. I
still use it, but for MM it sucks.



I am on a Linux box as I write this and have been using Linux for everyday
work for the better part of a decade, but I can assure you, Linux is not
now, nor ever has, moved as fast as a jack-rabbit.

Sounds like you are doing something wrong?
What distribution are you using?
Have you tried Debian or Slackware?
They are very fast and lean.


Debian is a nightmare to install : try a variety like Kubuntu.


In my opinion, Linux
and its major applications are, by a wide margin, the slowest moving OS
technology to ever gain wide use. The most obvious is the OS kernel
itself.

I disagree.
The 2.6 kernel is very fast and has low latency built in so the Morton
patches are not needed.


Also, the gui technology has been remarkably slow. The gtk
toolkit, despite being the last major gui toolkit developed, and
introduced about 20 years after the first such toolkits appeared, has
taken almost 10 years to reach its present state of rather impoverished
features and inconsistent API, and has introduced a stage of
backward incompatible releases to boot.

What are you talking about?
It sounds to me like you have some serious configuration errors in your
setup because Linux runs very fast for me on an AMD 1800+
I do have one gig of memory though.


You misunderstood.


It is unclear whether the Gnome
environment, now almost 10 years old, has yet reached the level of Windows
95, which was the last major commercial OS to acquire decent gui
technology. No commercial gui environment ever required more than 2 years
for its first mature release (including Amiga, OS/2, Windows 95, MacOS,
Java,BeOS).

I do agree with you about gnome.
I find gnome to be terrible and prefer windowmaker or even kde to gnome.

Also, Gnome is unfortunately highly inefficient. I believe
that current versions of Linux/Gnome are by far the most inefficient OS
environment ever produced. Gnome and its applications require enormous
memory and CPU resources to run - in the hundreds of MB for even a rather
spare environment.

So run blackbox, kde, windowmaker or enlightenment.
That's the beauty of Linux, you have a choice.


You do wth windows XP too : you can change the workplace shell there too.



This is certainly relevant for audio software, which
is intrinsically resource intensive. I don't believe hardware has really
made this irrelevant yet, because of how extreme the situation is under
Gnome.

I get more tracks with windowmaker than I do with gnome so some of what
you say I agree with.
But, you do have a choice.


The slow speed of Linux development also certainly applies in the
area of audio and midi technology, which I followed from the mid-1990s
until a couple of years ago, when I essentially gave up hope. During the
1990s, the major music application for Linux was the midi
sequencer RoseGarden. Four individuals were working on it. From about
1996 until 2001 or so, if I remember, they could not produce a usable
piece of software. They started, failed, and restarted with a different
plan, so many times it became almost comic (if it weren't so sad). One of
their failures resulted from losing all of their source code in a hard
disk crash.

Rosegarden has come a long, long way since then.
It's just as good as Cubase or Sonar.


A while ago I decided to give the current state of audio software
under Linux a try. Getting low latency required installing a specially
modified kernel.

The Morton kernel is no longer needed.


I was unable to test one of the leading midi programs
because it crashed as soon as I entered the name of a midi file in
its file open dialog box.

I find that hard to believe.


I was unable to find even a basic wave editing
program that was stable enough and usable enough to rely upon.
RoseGarden's score typesetting was based on a TeX (if you don't know
what TeX is, believe me, you don't want to know) macro package which
in my opinion is a dead end with no hope of developing into a first
rate system. I could go on and on but I think I have made my point.

Audacity is a great program and just as good as Sony Soundforge.
And you don't have to worry about Sony spying on you either.


The most important thing you need to consider is that making music is a
very complex business. Many different kinds of things need to interface
together. And everything needs to be as close as possible to 100% in
usability, documentation, reliability, and features. This is exactly
the kind of application where Linux falls down. If a system is even 99%,
users are going to be ****ed off.

That's very true, especially with a client breathing down your neck.
It was also one of the reasons I use a custom built system instead of a
Dell or something like that.
Stability is everything.


And Linux isn't even close to 99% most
of the time. It's more like 90%, or even 80% or less, in my view.
Even the best commercial software and hardware available today is a major
investment to use. I often find myself ready to hurl my monitor across the
room when a glitch in Sonar zaps me out of the zone, and I lose my
inspiration. I wouldn't even consider relying on Linux software for
something like this.

I do it all the time.
I think you might have serious configuration errors with your Linux system.
Could you post the specifics and maybe we can offer some help?

Thorsten Yates



--
"Fascinating. Want a pretzel??" : Hooper

begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

"Thorsten Yates" risked the wrath of Usenet weenies when he ventured forth
on 2005-12-27, commmitted his life to the whims of Google, and espoused:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:39:57 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:


You're missing the point. The two big claims for Linux is superior
performance and low cost.

As well as choice and freedom from Mircroslops snares.


My point is that superior performance doesn't mean
a lot when damn near anything can keep up with track counts you're
talking about in a non-professional setting. And the cost of the
platform and the recording hardware is considerably more than the cost
of the OS and recording software. I paid a lot more for my MOTU than I
paid for the computer I use it wirh.

What about stability?
Linux is far more stable than Windows which has a tendency to crap out,
get bogged down with spyware/virii/trojans.
What about security?

Windows can be secure enough with a competent sysadmin or basic
firewall/AV procedures in place.


http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archi....html#00000752

That is just the last round of malware with nothing to protect against
Do you really think people in here are as dumb as you are?

snip more idiotic bull****
--
To start your shiny new Pentium IV in Gameboy mode just enter
C:\win

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:43:49 +0000, Walter Mitty wrote:

Windows can be secure enough with a competent sysadmin or basic
firewall/AV procedures in place.

Most home users unfortunately are neither competent nor security conscious
- they are pushed towards running as Admin (aka root) because in XP Home
edition you have to boot up in Safe Mode to access the Admin account
(!!!!), and the number of expired Norton or McAfee subscriptions I've
seen, and I mean expired for MONTHS if not YEARS.... beggars belief!

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!

Walter Mitty wrote:

Windows can be secure enough with a competent sysadmin or basic
firewall/AV procedures in place.


No it can't and never will. Just another myth propagated by M$.
If things go wrong on your PC due to malware and you still correctly
administered your PC, M$ will still accuse that you don't know what you
are doing. So typical.

Mostly because of strongarm tactics and an illegal monopoly.
If Linux and Windows started on equal ground, which one do you think we
would be using now?


But they are not. And Linux suks for gaming : a *big* seller of PCs is
their gaming capability.


So, gaming is what you want rather than security? Go buy an Xbox
instead. Leave computing to real computer operating systems that do
provide security. M$ biggest mistake, to increase the graphics speed,
was to merge the GDI into kernel space. No such thing as a perfect
video driver for your video card.

I care about my time and I find that I have to do much less to my linux
systems than to my Windows systems.



Like what? I never do anything to my Windows : because you cant. I
spend far more time tinkering with Linux (often with fatal results)
because "I can".


Guffaw!!! Whatever happened to "Properly administered"??

I disagree.
It all depends upon what the user wants/needs and the amount of time the
person is willing to invest.


Exactly : and with linux often too much time.


Guffaw!! Another myth. How long did it take you to learn windows?
Once you got a problem on your billy-box you will be spending too much
time, which is fairly common.


I love Linux but it simply lacks the application base that people like
to see. I'm not saying thats good, but it is how it is.


No, you just are ignorant of what is available for Linux. Google is
your friend and so are linux support forums.

--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a long
time now.

begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a long
time now.

It is really strange that you widiots can't help but show your utter dimness
so clearly. It is *not* fixed.
You can lie as much you want, it will not change the current miserable state
of windows one iota
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Peter Khlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a
long time now.

It is really strange that you widiots can't help but show your utter
dimness so clearly. It is *not* fixed.
You can lie as much you want, it will not change the current
miserable state of windows one iota

Your idiocy is showing. Been fixed over a year now.

You didn't know because "linux makes you stupid"

--
They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

begin risky.vbs
,
Peter ?B?S8O2aGxtYW5u?= writes:
begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a
long time now.

It is really strange that you widiots can't help but show your utter
dimness so clearly. It is *not* fixed.
You can lie as much you want, it will not change the current
miserable state of windows one iota

And forging another poster just shows how low the wintrolls will
stoop. Truly pathetic.

--
Windows rootkit install HOWTO:
1. Open CD drive
2. Insert music CD
3. Close CD drive
All done - Windows: Insecure by design

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:38 +0000, relic wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Peter Khlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a
long time now.

It is really strange that you widiots can't help but show your utter
dimness so clearly. It is *not* fixed.
You can lie as much you want, it will not change the current
miserable state of windows one iota

Your idiocy is showing. Been fixed over a year now.



So why are F-Secure posting it TODAY at 0830 GMT and saying "We hope
MS produces a fix" if it HAS been fixed?
Who's telling porkies here, and I wouldn't bet on the Wintrolls.

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!

Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:38 +0000, relic wrote:

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr chrisv wrote:

Peter Khlmann wrote:
begin virus.txt.scr Walter Mitty wrote:

Idiot.

Only a linux fruitcake is not aware that that has been fixed. For a
long time now.

It is really strange that you widiots can't help but show your utter
dimness so clearly. It is *not* fixed.
You can lie as much you want, it will not change the current
miserable state of windows one iota

Your idiocy is showing. Been fixed over a year now.



So why are F-Secure posting it TODAY at 0830 GMT and saying "We hope
MS produces a fix" if it HAS been fixed?
Who's telling porkies here, and I wouldn't bet on the Wintrolls.

Probably because they know you linux****s will jump on it at make fools of
yourselves.

--
They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.

Alan Connor burped up warm pablum in
:

Linux is moving faster than a jack-rabbit these days!

Rocky

Great. Keep it up, and pretty soon no one will be able to
tell the difference between Linux and Windows.

Don't worry! Windows is the one that needs to be rebooted when instaling
new software. Also, it collapses like a house of cards when running older
or buggy software thus needs yet another reboot.

--

Sincerely,

Tris Orendorff
[Two antennae meet on a roof, fall in love and get married. The ceremony
wasn't much, but the reception was excellent.]

Sean Conolly wrote:
"Thorsten Yates" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:16:54 -0500, Sean Conolly wrote:
Linux is ahead of Windows in terms of technology, but Windows has the edge
in terms of market.
However that doesn't make it better.

Have you ever tried some of the applications included with dynebolic?
They are pretty slick!

I'm not claiming that Linux can replace a Protools rig, but it can replace
Sonar or Cubase/Nuendo and for a lot less money.

All linux needs is for people to give it a chance instead of just dissing
it without ever trying it.


You're missing the point. The two big claims for Linux is superior
performance and low cost. My point is that superior performance doesn't mean
a lot when damn near anything can keep up with track counts you're talking
about in a non-professional setting. And the cost of the platform and the
recording hardware is considerably more than the cost of the OS and
recording software. I paid a lot more for my MOTU than I paid for the
computer I use it wirh.

This is philicorda, unusually posting from googoo groups after a few
glasses of wine, so this may not readable.

The big claims for Linux audio in my opinion a

Some interesting and useful software that is not available for other
operating systems.

Open formats for reliable long term archiving of projects. You can even
archive the source code for all the audio software and plugins or a
complete binary distro along with the audio if you like.

Drivers for hardware abandoned by manufacturers are still bug fixed and
maintained. This avoids the 'forced upgrade' scenario.

Cross platform compatability. I could install OSX PPC/Ardour at a
remote studio and take the project home to use on x86/Linux/Ardour or
to transfer to Windows/Cubase SX at my leisure.
If they are only running OSX Pro Tools or DP or Logic then this is
impossible.

My Cubase dongle is worth more than my laptop. I would rather take out
a free DAW for location stuff than risk getting both dongle *and*
laptop nicked and not be able to access cubase sessions till I can get
insurance/replacement.

I work with a number of other people with CubaseSX on Windows, and need
to exchange projects between computers. If one of us pays to upgrade to
a newer version of Cubase, everyone else needs to pay as well,
otherwise the projects are not readable by the older Cubase versions. I
guess this is 'forced upgrade' too. Using free software, everyone has
the latest version, or a least a common point of compatability between
their various DAWs.

As far as performance goes, its more down to hardware nowadays. I could
probably get more tracks under CubaseSX/Windows 16bit as Ardour *only*
records at 32bit float for audio. The last time I ran out of tracks for
recording was many years ago using tape, so benchmarks don't mean a lot
to me.


Once you pull your head out of the gee-whiz factor, what do you have left?
The destop user is what Windows has been targeting for over 15 years, and
they do it very, very well. For the guy who cares a lot more about his time
than what's under the hood of his system, there's just no reason at all to
use Linux for an audio suite. The final killer is the tools and plugins
available under windows, there's probably thousands of plugins available and
a lot of them are free if want to weed through the crap to find the gems.

VST on Linux is possible. Not tried it myself.


I'm sorry, but arguing Linux vs. Windows for a recording platform is like
arguing Betamax vs. VHS. Technically better in some aspects does not win
over good enough and widely accepted.

Note that Betacam was successful as a professional format while VHS
was strictly for home use. I think the analogy just snapped.


Sean

ps - I use RH AS at work on a half-dozen servers, debian for my hosted
web-server, WhiteBox 4.0 for the household internet browsing system, Win98
on my recording platform, and WinXP on my work desktop. Just to show that
I'm not biased against Linux overall.

Yup. Don't fix what ain't broke. I don't think Linux audio is suitable
for everyone in it's present state , but I'm not totally happy with the
restrictions of propriatory software either.

Happy christmas everyone. Even to the ever faithful flatfish who
started this thread.

Tris Orendorff wrote:

Don't worry! Windows is the one that needs to be rebooted
when instaling new software.

Most of the time no, not with version 5. But some applications seem to
think that they are on win98.

Also, it collapses like a house of cards when running older
or buggy software thus needs yet another reboot.

No, that was windows pre version 5. Drivers that run in the OS context
can still bring it down, but applications can not of themselves bring
the OS down.


Kind regards & Seasons Greetings'

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

"punter" wrote in message
oups.com...


As far as performance goes, its more down to hardware nowadays. I could
probably get more tracks under CubaseSX/Windows 16bit as Ardour *only*
records at 32bit float for audio. The last time I ran out of tracks for
recording was many years ago using tape, so benchmarks don't mean a lot
to me.

Why only records as 32 bit ? There will never be true 24 bit converters, so
recording a larger file (ie 32 bit) acheives nothing but extra CPU and data
throughput. Are you sure it doesn't *record* at a real bitdepth and
*process* at 32, like most other applications.


geoff

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

On 28 Dec 2005 14:43:49 GMT,
Walter Mitty wrote:
Windows can be secure enough with a competent sysadmin or basic
firewall/AV procedures in place.



http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-122005.html#00000752


quote

There's a new zero-day vulnerability related to Windows' image rendering
- - namely WMF files (Windows Metafiles). Trojan downloaders, available
from unionseek[DOT]com, have been actively exploiting this
vulnerability. Right now, fully patched Windows XP SP2 machines machines
are vulnerable, with no known patch.


Note that you can get infected if you visit a web site that has an image
file containing the exploit. Internet Explorer users might automatically
get infected.

/quote

IE, because every click should be an adventure...


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDs5QTd90bcYOAWPYRAntSAKCtbVlND4FwfE0V3a94Ix yWf4m6cwCg0XXw
+4OjmC3m/e0PdzLg1sRhXLo=
=dZls
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Intel is not Microsoft. They have a very good history of shipping what
they promise (with a few exceptions).
Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy