I'm wondering why all audio cards manufacturers (not only CW), and audio programs are kind of neglecting the huge potential about Unix-like or Unix-family of operating systems. It's not a secret that unix flavors are doing an amazing job on high tech movie studios (like pixar). The guys there run linux on their machines with special hardware and software to create awesome visual efects and characters.
Why big audio companies like Steinberg and Cakewalk, are not pulling on that direction also.., of course the audio hardware manufacturers should create drivers for those platforms too, they claim to be competitive ... so why they are leaving linux behind?...
The performance of our audio machines will increase more than 200% if we choose to install linux, we all know for a fact the kernel is light years ahead from Windoze in terms of eficiency. Ok CW is building OSX drivers.. good..when?.. why not in linux? because I guess there is not a big audio software running there (please I let me know if I'm wrong I wish I'm wrong).
Just something I needed to let go out..
--- A short story about a "deseased" Operating System.
I used to be a beta tester for IBM's OS/2, in those days I was proud to have an Intel 486..., and beleive me guys..., with the OS/2 warp 3 running I was able to: Have 5 windows opened, the first window was formatting a floppy disk (1.2mb those days), the second I was downloading a file from internet, the third was a realtime clock, fourth was DOS-like one playing Doom, and the fifth was a DOS-like window wich allowed to boot my computer in realtime and loading a MS-dos from floppy B!!.. and when I mean booting I mean you could see the bios displaying and ram counting inside that window and still running all other processes without a glitch!!!!!!!.
Try to do that with XP.
cheers.
Snoopy
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: snoopy4ever on 2004-12-01 10:55 ]</font>
Unix, linux, OSX , OS families for sound production
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
well, I think the main problem is that linux totally breaks the corporate rule of "locking in". By that I mean they want all sources closed, user freedom limited, and also third party participation controled. It's all about control I think. The more you have control, the more you know your market, or the more you actually 'create' your own market.
With linux... well, ya know how it breaks most of these rules. And in doing so, linux drives away big corporates and also big money. That's the thing. The slogan "Better things for free" doesn't work as a product. As a tool tho, it makes perfect sense.
So I do agree with you in full. I took a look at linux a while back and was totally impressed by its performance, only to be turned completely off by its lack of support for my cutting edge(back then) hardware. And now, with AGNULA and a bunch of audio things happening for linux, it seems all that's needed to make everything tick is support from hardware companies. And that's percisely why I think hardware companies are holding back (some).
As soon as there's hardware support, then the linux community will patch together lots of new software. (and they have the ability I'm sure) I mean, face it, lots of stuff for linux is already beyond what any major software companies can think of. Obviously, there are lots of people who will be more than unhappy to see all these softwares become reality.
There's alot going against linux I think.. just because it has the potential to become the next killer platform. Alot of hardcore people are already using it tho. I'm still keeping my eyes on AGNULA.
With linux... well, ya know how it breaks most of these rules. And in doing so, linux drives away big corporates and also big money. That's the thing. The slogan "Better things for free" doesn't work as a product. As a tool tho, it makes perfect sense.
So I do agree with you in full. I took a look at linux a while back and was totally impressed by its performance, only to be turned completely off by its lack of support for my cutting edge(back then) hardware. And now, with AGNULA and a bunch of audio things happening for linux, it seems all that's needed to make everything tick is support from hardware companies. And that's percisely why I think hardware companies are holding back (some).
As soon as there's hardware support, then the linux community will patch together lots of new software. (and they have the ability I'm sure) I mean, face it, lots of stuff for linux is already beyond what any major software companies can think of. Obviously, there are lots of people who will be more than unhappy to see all these softwares become reality.
There's alot going against linux I think.. just because it has the potential to become the next killer platform. Alot of hardcore people are already using it tho. I'm still keeping my eyes on AGNULA.
I'm not trying to be insulting, but there's no nice way to say this:
Most "musicians" barely have the technical capability to handle Windows, let alone the day to day complexity and troubleshooting of a *nix based system. It's just too difficult for average users... Installing something like a non-standard driver and recompiling kernel is far too hardcore for someone who questions where to plug in their guitar amp as it is. Technical support for any software company would be a nightmare!
Face it, as Creamware users we are not average. As a whole we're probably on the "geeky" side of music and it shows. We're able to troubleshoot and configure systems most music users would give up on.
I'm a firm believer linux will never be mainstream on the desktop - no matter how good it is. Reason? There's not enough money in licensing to be made. Mac OS X is about as close as you'll ever come. I think your dreaming otherwise.
I'm in a team that runs 100+ web servers for a living (site hosting) that consists of Windows 2000 & 2003, Red Hat 7.x, Fedora Core 1 & 2 and FreeBSD 4.x systems. I speak from experience... I can honestly say that this myth that linux boxes are that much more stable than Windows is a thing of the past. Windows has come A LONG way on the server level and is very stable indeed. We have just as many reboots, crashes and OS problems with the *nix boxes as we do Windows. The *nix servers get hacked FAR more than the Windows server - probably 10 to 1.
Windows 95, 98, ME, and NT4 were huge piles of crap. Windows 2000 vastly changed things. Windows XP and 2003 (on a server level) are easily in the same league as most linux distributions in terms of stability and uptime unless you're running something outlandish like Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, etc (large clustering applications). I will say that linux dominates as an email platform - Qmail rocks!
I'm a big fan of whatever works - be it linux or Windows, but I just don't think Windows these days is a bad as everybody likes to make it. I see that on a daily basis.
Most "musicians" barely have the technical capability to handle Windows, let alone the day to day complexity and troubleshooting of a *nix based system. It's just too difficult for average users... Installing something like a non-standard driver and recompiling kernel is far too hardcore for someone who questions where to plug in their guitar amp as it is. Technical support for any software company would be a nightmare!
Face it, as Creamware users we are not average. As a whole we're probably on the "geeky" side of music and it shows. We're able to troubleshoot and configure systems most music users would give up on.
I'm a firm believer linux will never be mainstream on the desktop - no matter how good it is. Reason? There's not enough money in licensing to be made. Mac OS X is about as close as you'll ever come. I think your dreaming otherwise.
I'm in a team that runs 100+ web servers for a living (site hosting) that consists of Windows 2000 & 2003, Red Hat 7.x, Fedora Core 1 & 2 and FreeBSD 4.x systems. I speak from experience... I can honestly say that this myth that linux boxes are that much more stable than Windows is a thing of the past. Windows has come A LONG way on the server level and is very stable indeed. We have just as many reboots, crashes and OS problems with the *nix boxes as we do Windows. The *nix servers get hacked FAR more than the Windows server - probably 10 to 1.
Windows 95, 98, ME, and NT4 were huge piles of crap. Windows 2000 vastly changed things. Windows XP and 2003 (on a server level) are easily in the same league as most linux distributions in terms of stability and uptime unless you're running something outlandish like Hotmail, Google, Yahoo, etc (large clustering applications). I will say that linux dominates as an email platform - Qmail rocks!
I'm a big fan of whatever works - be it linux or Windows, but I just don't think Windows these days is a bad as everybody likes to make it. I see that on a daily basis.
i love linux at least for that =)killall -9 shit.exe
About stability - unlike windoze *nux systems allow user to tune every bit of them, so both ways are possible - the Win95-like and QNX-like
I run a mandrake10 box for more than 3 months of uptime it has not crashed att all, and performs NetBIOS(windows network protocol) even faster than win2k+3
I too do not wish to be insulting, but most car owners don't build hotrods either. Further, I think that you should try to get off of the Red Hat core and see what's happening in the Debian world.On 2004-12-01 16:44, sinix wrote:
I'm not trying to be insulting, but there's no nice way to say this:
Most "musicians" barely have the technical capability to handle Windows, let alone the day to day complexity and troubleshooting of a *nix based system. It's just too difficult for average users... Installing something like a non-standard driver and recompiling kernel is far too hardcore for someone who questions where to plug in their guitar amp as it is. Technical support for any software company would be a nightmare!
While I doubt anyone who really wishes to get things done musically will get along with the semi-roll-your-own-ness of Debian, distros based off of Debian, like Simply Mepis and Linspire are amazing (and yes, you can make Linspire do your bidding like all the rest, you just can't do apt-get dist-upgrade, but it is unbelivably simple, well documented, has brilliant tutorials, and is in fact secure despite a few underinformed reviews(ers).
Now, will it run 40 tracks at 4ms out of the box? I doubt it, but these processes (AGNULA's work, I mean) are just getting nailed down as we speak. Just look at the Linux-based VST rackmount box, Muse. Look at the sequencer Muse (anyone know if they are related?). Ground is being made quickly. But back to Red Hat for a moment.
In spite of their new Fedora concept, Red Hat is essentially ignoring the desktop user (& mandrake is not THAT much better, but it is better). But just in the past 2-3 years, watching all these distros clean up and play nice has been awe inspiring. A little ways to go, yes, but I've taught my Mom to use Linspire. No joke.
Granted, she's not using any super-legacy hardware, nor bleeding edge, but because of that she doesn't have to worry about all those weird voodoo fixits. With that in place, it's easier to use than Windows, more stable, secure, and cheaper. ...and remember, this is all about choice, the point is not whether this is going to appeal to everyone.
It will most certainly take a long time to offer an equivilent software setup that you would purchase for you XP or OSX system. But it's happening. Just look at how many articles there have been in the past few years about Linux in MAJOR magazines! SOS have practically made mention of Linux every 2-3 months. That's more than they mention CWA and we're still kicking and vital, even if the company is licking it's wounds.
As for using Mac's, OSX is far easier than Windows, but I've heard nothing but trouble from all my MAC user friends who are experiencing crashes all the time since they upgraded. They might be able to fix it, or do tweaks, but OSX is based off of BSD, so you still need to know some voodoo if you have to get in the guts a little. These things are always in flux. OSX proves Linux/*NIX/BSD can be made easier and more intuitive, but not without good planning and a few comprimises.
Apple made a few poor decisions on release schedules because they had a profit and market share to worry about. Do you see where I'm going with this??
As for Windows stability, XP is far improved, but it is not even in the same ballpark as a well thought out Linux/*NIX/BSD install. To be sure, I've never had a web page load a database error redirect, or "web-server couldn't provide page, try again later" that didn't include the letters, IIS, ASP, or .NET somewhere in the error message. Also, I'm curious as to whether those hacked linux machines have GUI's installed? I too have spent a lot of time managing servers, not 2003, but 2000, Debian, and SuSE. My experience has been much the opposite. While Apache has 90% of the webserver space and will statistically ALWAYS be hit more while that ratio holds, Linux and most of it's programs will require (in my experience) less tweaking to lock down than a MS box.
Even more, I've got a 1gHz Athlon Linux box that keeps up with, or smokes my 1.4gHz Centrino (not P IV, don't let the marchitecture confuse you, the Centrino is pretty damn fast) laptop in all but games, and even then it's mostly because my Linux box has a Radeon (like, the first one. It would be referred to as the Radeon 7000 by today's marketing) and my laptop has a Quadro FX700.
And because Linux is more modular, no one module is going to make the kernel crap out (usually, anyway. it does happen, but it's rare). Rarely has Apache pooped out in so far as an error message has told me. And I've never had an unrecoverable system crash nor noted any aggregious problems showing up in the logs. But I have had a job where I had to arrive earlier to work than anyone else to make sure the Windows 2000 server wasn't still locked up when everyone arrived. And they still have security hell to worry about, waiting months to patch up outward facing machines. It can get ugly REAL fast. I've had a few attacks under Linux, but using djb's software wherever practical, like qmail instead of sendmail, also djbdns instead of bind, daemontools, etc. attackers couldn't get very deep into the system. I also use mostly Domino behind an Apache proxy, so security isn't quite as much of a worry. But there it is. It really depends on what tools you are using. Generally, bloat = break(able).
Again, these things change, but not that much, that quickly. The entire market would have to change overnight before Apple or Microsoft could be as dynamic as the Linux world.
To make a long story tedious, there is no perfect, but Linux has been gaining such ground, so fast that I seriously doubt that it won't reach or surpass 15% of desktop space used within 5 years. Just think of how many governments, and multi-billion $$ corporations have moved to Linux systems in their infrastructure. And think about how in just 6-8 months, people have jumped on OSS progs like Firefox or OpenOffice.org. Now the Linux desktop users have been piling on as well. So it's coming, and I for one am ready.
The question for us is, will wsipple and his band of merry coders put us in the arena (for OSX as well as Linux) so we can take part in the pioneering of a new audio platform, or will we have to sit this one out and watch from the sidelines. I hope they will take their time and do it right. But I too am anxious to play.
Sam
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-12-04 16:53 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-12-04 16:54 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dehuszar on 2004-12-04 16:58 ]</font>
Sam,
Thanks for the well thought out reply. I'll only hit one of the points to say that all the linux boxes we have (probably around 30) don't use a GUI at all. In fact, I've personally never used a linux box with a GUI! I'd probably feel lost. Well, I do own a ibook with OS X.
We primarily use Red Hat because of it's compatibility with various hosting control panels. Most hosting companies use control panels to deligate control to end users and I'm sure this adds to these boxes having less security in that regard (even though we don't allow shell access). With 8,000+ clients, adding sites into Apache or IIS manually simply isn't an option. All of our email gateway servers are FreeBSD running Qmail, because it's so damn solid as a MTA. Nothing else comes close, except maybe dedicated appliances (Iron Port?).
The bulk of our hosting is Windows based... we go after the niche market targeting a few specific ASP and .NET shopping carts. Linux hosts are a dime a dozen and there's no money to be made competing with $2.95/month mega-hosts.
Personally, I think Windows is pretty damn cool. I just don't have a beef with MS like a lot of people do. I don't mind paying for the licensing, just like I don't mind paying for my apps - be it Scope, music or desktop stuff. Do I think open source is cool? Hell yeah... some of the best stuff available comes out of it (right back to my Qmail example). I couldn't do my daily routine without Snort, MRTG, Cacti, etc either - all from open source.
However, my point for the above post was that for the vast majority of users, day in, day out, I don't see linux having the ease of use that Windows does. Not that linux / *nix wasn't a kick ass OS in it's own right. Maybe it's time for me to try Debian with a GUI? Who knows, maybe it'll change my mind. Maybe it needs another 5 years time to have that ease of use most look for.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2004-12-04 20:29 ]</font>
Thanks for the well thought out reply. I'll only hit one of the points to say that all the linux boxes we have (probably around 30) don't use a GUI at all. In fact, I've personally never used a linux box with a GUI! I'd probably feel lost. Well, I do own a ibook with OS X.
We primarily use Red Hat because of it's compatibility with various hosting control panels. Most hosting companies use control panels to deligate control to end users and I'm sure this adds to these boxes having less security in that regard (even though we don't allow shell access). With 8,000+ clients, adding sites into Apache or IIS manually simply isn't an option. All of our email gateway servers are FreeBSD running Qmail, because it's so damn solid as a MTA. Nothing else comes close, except maybe dedicated appliances (Iron Port?).
The bulk of our hosting is Windows based... we go after the niche market targeting a few specific ASP and .NET shopping carts. Linux hosts are a dime a dozen and there's no money to be made competing with $2.95/month mega-hosts.
Personally, I think Windows is pretty damn cool. I just don't have a beef with MS like a lot of people do. I don't mind paying for the licensing, just like I don't mind paying for my apps - be it Scope, music or desktop stuff. Do I think open source is cool? Hell yeah... some of the best stuff available comes out of it (right back to my Qmail example). I couldn't do my daily routine without Snort, MRTG, Cacti, etc either - all from open source.
However, my point for the above post was that for the vast majority of users, day in, day out, I don't see linux having the ease of use that Windows does. Not that linux / *nix wasn't a kick ass OS in it's own right. Maybe it's time for me to try Debian with a GUI? Who knows, maybe it'll change my mind. Maybe it needs another 5 years time to have that ease of use most look for.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2004-12-04 20:29 ]</font>
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
expences versus profit. compability.
its not that hard to figure out.
i mean, why should hw/sw developers put together a team of unix developers for their product if the earnings made from it just isnt there?
Its not that linux aint good, it all just comes down to two facts:
1. PC users use windows.
2. Mac users use OS9 or OSX
i know i am simplyfying things here, but in terms of compability and profit, and not atleast SUPPORT, this is the easiest approach, and the only sensible one.
i agree OSX should have a high priority, but for the mass market, Linux has a long way to go before it even gets considered by most hw/sw developers.
I guess thats one of the reasons most Linux stuff still is based on voulenteering programmers and other enthusiasts.
So, Pixar runs Linux boxes. What do the 500000 (ok, its a loose number, but you get my point) other GFX companies run?
..and who, Pixar or the others, deserves most attention when it comes to support and development?
thank god for the enthusiasts tho.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2004-12-05 00:09 ]</font>
its not that hard to figure out.
i mean, why should hw/sw developers put together a team of unix developers for their product if the earnings made from it just isnt there?
Its not that linux aint good, it all just comes down to two facts:
1. PC users use windows.
2. Mac users use OS9 or OSX
i know i am simplyfying things here, but in terms of compability and profit, and not atleast SUPPORT, this is the easiest approach, and the only sensible one.
i agree OSX should have a high priority, but for the mass market, Linux has a long way to go before it even gets considered by most hw/sw developers.
I guess thats one of the reasons most Linux stuff still is based on voulenteering programmers and other enthusiasts.
So, Pixar runs Linux boxes. What do the 500000 (ok, its a loose number, but you get my point) other GFX companies run?
..and who, Pixar or the others, deserves most attention when it comes to support and development?
thank god for the enthusiasts tho.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2004-12-05 00:09 ]</font>
-
next to nothing
- Posts: 2521
- Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Bergen, Norway
just another issue:
If i am not mistaken, Pixar use Maya (by Alias).
It has a retail price (the most basic version with linux support) at approx €3000. a nice full "unlimited" version costs approx €7500.
if you want to be secure to get the latest version updates, you just need to pay another €1500.
if you want support, thats another 156,00 EUR for the most basic support package. with this package u get the right to 1 TELEPHONE INCIDENT and to PAY FOR SUPOPPORT WITH VISA.
If you recon you will need more than one phonecall, you can always buy the "value support pack" which retails at approx €460.
with this package you can even have eSupport , tho only on a temporary basis of 90 days. you can even make 5 phonecalls.
these two packages are for all maya owners.
but you can have even better support!
for a lousy 1300 euro you can even have e-mail support! to be able to buy this package, you will need to buy the more expencive Maya versions tho.
For the best support, pay €1500.
i guess they can afford a Linux dev group then.
Oh, and by the way:
it only supports Red Hat™ Linux® 7.3 or 8.0.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2004-12-05 00:55 ]</font>
If i am not mistaken, Pixar use Maya (by Alias).
It has a retail price (the most basic version with linux support) at approx €3000. a nice full "unlimited" version costs approx €7500.
if you want to be secure to get the latest version updates, you just need to pay another €1500.
if you want support, thats another 156,00 EUR for the most basic support package. with this package u get the right to 1 TELEPHONE INCIDENT and to PAY FOR SUPOPPORT WITH VISA.
If you recon you will need more than one phonecall, you can always buy the "value support pack" which retails at approx €460.
with this package you can even have eSupport , tho only on a temporary basis of 90 days. you can even make 5 phonecalls.
these two packages are for all maya owners.
but you can have even better support!
for a lousy 1300 euro you can even have e-mail support! to be able to buy this package, you will need to buy the more expencive Maya versions tho.
For the best support, pay €1500.
i guess they can afford a Linux dev group then.
Oh, and by the way:
it only supports Red Hat™ Linux® 7.3 or 8.0.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: piddi on 2004-12-05 00:55 ]</font>
The main issue with Linux/BSD is the interface. Good look convincing companies to re-port all their stuff to KDE/GNOME/X/Motif/ergh for a small/tiny fraction of the market. The average *nix geek isn't going to pop 750$-1000$ for audio software if they have an issue with 130$ Windows XP Home (other than it being the tool of Satan, that is (and yes, Satan is verrrry verrrrrry angry (from all the rebooting and driver monging.)))
This is fairly important since messing are with audio is strongly interface driven. You can't just load up gigs of data and crunch numbers (altho, yes, I agree, 36 teraflops processing audio sounds REALLY REALLY FUN to me.)
In the long run it makes sense tho, once the interface part stabilizes and merges a bit, more companies are going to move to it. OSX is awesome, but similar for PC would be great. Linux has backing from big players, and runs on some of the fastest computers, so it's not technically inept. The audio stuff looks pretty promising, and with full source to kernel, you can easily (well...) hack a tight audio-centric system that'll garantee audio delivery to all interested parties before pushing pixels for drop shadow menu animation.
Also, Maya costing 3000 euros isn't really that much of an issue. It's pretty cheap for commercial/industrial grade software. Think Ferrari at 3000 euros and it'll make more sense.
This is fairly important since messing are with audio is strongly interface driven. You can't just load up gigs of data and crunch numbers (altho, yes, I agree, 36 teraflops processing audio sounds REALLY REALLY FUN to me.)
In the long run it makes sense tho, once the interface part stabilizes and merges a bit, more companies are going to move to it. OSX is awesome, but similar for PC would be great. Linux has backing from big players, and runs on some of the fastest computers, so it's not technically inept. The audio stuff looks pretty promising, and with full source to kernel, you can easily (well...) hack a tight audio-centric system that'll garantee audio delivery to all interested parties before pushing pixels for drop shadow menu animation.
Also, Maya costing 3000 euros isn't really that much of an issue. It's pretty cheap for commercial/industrial grade software. Think Ferrari at 3000 euros and it'll make more sense.
My understanding is that most of the video work is done on ports to linux from Windows and/or MAC soft, but since Linux has native clustering support, it's easier to port or emulate the creative front end at an initial hit in performance at the composition end, and let the license free horde of machines do the rendering leg-work. A few custom plugs and the initial workstation licenses are the only cost at hand.... not so bad a deal, really.
Again, there is no perfect, but at least the Linux OS can be broken down into preferred parts. It allows you the ability to strip to the bare bones.
XP has required several years of tinkering before 3rd party coders could wade their way by hand with no official references or resources to guide them towards doing what each Linux installer allows you to do by clicking on the "advanced" button.
Realistically, Debian is not like finding jesus or anything, but using apt-get to update all the lists of software updates for what you have installed and then do the updates and installations is pretty sweet. Use synaptic (a GUI applet for apt-get) in your windowing system of choice and you've got Windows Update's nuts nailed to the floorboard.
Simply Mepis is cool because, like Knoppix, you can boot live from the CD and utilize tons of applets, analysers, repair tools, etc., but you can also install a full version with online access to the rest of the goods that don't fit on a 700MB CD (and from a workstation view, as opposed to a server mindset, there's a lot that doesn't fit on 700 MB).
Linspire uses, for their Click N' Run system a bastardized version of apt-get... hence no dist-upgrade (which for the uninitiated does a full update from the kernel, to KDE/Gnome, to your apps, drivers, libraries, etc.). But it allows you to click on a piece of software in their library, (which is only a few obscure pieces shy of the apt-get library) and have it install u/grpmi style all of the dependancies, etc. in one click... no command-line, no package management, no nothing. 'X' app is installed or not, click to install or uninstall. 'Y' app is needed to complete the install, with your permission, we'll knock it all out.
Easy as apple pie with some ice cream on the side.
On the code side, Microsoft HAS made leaps and bounds... but Microsoft has not been in the code business of late as much as they have been in politics. Therein lies the major incentive to switch.
As soon as your work flow is dependant on the licensing schemes and lock-in, you are trapped. And while CWA is propriatary in this sense, it is more akin to IBM whose plan is.... yes, component x,y, and z are closed. But they work great, and we'll offer as much as we can to allow you to work with softwares based on a, b, c, d, and whatever else you can find.
That's where the open-source movement will be able to help CWA. ...by filling the space that CWA isn't in the position to fill themselves. If an open-initiative (note, I did not say open-source) community can keep building momentum as it has, and can open up it's market to the otherwise ignored, CWA can focus on and profit from a few key, high-investment projects like analog-modeling tools, while the Bowens, Hummels, Aderns, j8k's, and Celmo's of the community come up with more unconventional, and --lets face it-- riskier products, and we'll be able to expand our grassroots community.
As far as I'm concerned.... f*ck Linux as much as Windows and OSX. They all have their place... I'm more interested in whose got the energy and presence of mind, and passion of heart to keep the ball rolling at a pace that encourage the community to utilize the tools at hand, and still allows new ideas and a mobile flexibility.
Given that you can't even develop AT ALL for Pro-Tools unless you have a history of for-profit development, and given that there is such platform lockin taking hold (except for Linux and OSX having a fairly broad commonality of compatibility) I can't forsee a free (as in libre), functional, and consitantly fresh and creative community surrounding Windows, given their current trajectory. I see similar trends with OSX, but because of their BSD roots, it's not hard for some passionate geeks to bridge the gap in spite of Apple's want for control over their platform.
So, to boil it down... it's not that Windows is untenable, it's just that there are better options (under certain circumstances), which at their worst, will inspire (read: force) Microsoft to lean toward's their better angels.
Sam
Again, there is no perfect, but at least the Linux OS can be broken down into preferred parts. It allows you the ability to strip to the bare bones.
XP has required several years of tinkering before 3rd party coders could wade their way by hand with no official references or resources to guide them towards doing what each Linux installer allows you to do by clicking on the "advanced" button.
Realistically, Debian is not like finding jesus or anything, but using apt-get to update all the lists of software updates for what you have installed and then do the updates and installations is pretty sweet. Use synaptic (a GUI applet for apt-get) in your windowing system of choice and you've got Windows Update's nuts nailed to the floorboard.
Simply Mepis is cool because, like Knoppix, you can boot live from the CD and utilize tons of applets, analysers, repair tools, etc., but you can also install a full version with online access to the rest of the goods that don't fit on a 700MB CD (and from a workstation view, as opposed to a server mindset, there's a lot that doesn't fit on 700 MB).
Linspire uses, for their Click N' Run system a bastardized version of apt-get... hence no dist-upgrade (which for the uninitiated does a full update from the kernel, to KDE/Gnome, to your apps, drivers, libraries, etc.). But it allows you to click on a piece of software in their library, (which is only a few obscure pieces shy of the apt-get library) and have it install u/grpmi style all of the dependancies, etc. in one click... no command-line, no package management, no nothing. 'X' app is installed or not, click to install or uninstall. 'Y' app is needed to complete the install, with your permission, we'll knock it all out.
Easy as apple pie with some ice cream on the side.
On the code side, Microsoft HAS made leaps and bounds... but Microsoft has not been in the code business of late as much as they have been in politics. Therein lies the major incentive to switch.
As soon as your work flow is dependant on the licensing schemes and lock-in, you are trapped. And while CWA is propriatary in this sense, it is more akin to IBM whose plan is.... yes, component x,y, and z are closed. But they work great, and we'll offer as much as we can to allow you to work with softwares based on a, b, c, d, and whatever else you can find.
That's where the open-source movement will be able to help CWA. ...by filling the space that CWA isn't in the position to fill themselves. If an open-initiative (note, I did not say open-source) community can keep building momentum as it has, and can open up it's market to the otherwise ignored, CWA can focus on and profit from a few key, high-investment projects like analog-modeling tools, while the Bowens, Hummels, Aderns, j8k's, and Celmo's of the community come up with more unconventional, and --lets face it-- riskier products, and we'll be able to expand our grassroots community.
As far as I'm concerned.... f*ck Linux as much as Windows and OSX. They all have their place... I'm more interested in whose got the energy and presence of mind, and passion of heart to keep the ball rolling at a pace that encourage the community to utilize the tools at hand, and still allows new ideas and a mobile flexibility.
Given that you can't even develop AT ALL for Pro-Tools unless you have a history of for-profit development, and given that there is such platform lockin taking hold (except for Linux and OSX having a fairly broad commonality of compatibility) I can't forsee a free (as in libre), functional, and consitantly fresh and creative community surrounding Windows, given their current trajectory. I see similar trends with OSX, but because of their BSD roots, it's not hard for some passionate geeks to bridge the gap in spite of Apple's want for control over their platform.
So, to boil it down... it's not that Windows is untenable, it's just that there are better options (under certain circumstances), which at their worst, will inspire (read: force) Microsoft to lean toward's their better angels.
Sam
-
snoopy4ever
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Costa Rica
Thank you boys for your sincere opinions.
I guess I open a Pandora box here..,
I meant to open a discussion about why our options as users are limited in terms of Operating Systems..
Yes I admit we (or most of us) are on the specialized more deep side of computer music (some would say geeky), and that part of the market is not as big as software/hardware companies are pursuing the most.
Even though the OS's makers try to sell them as an all-purpose solution, the fact is that some are more suited for some tasks than others. It's up to the user to choose which one is best for the job.
I'd only like to see the same options we have so far for MAC and Windows on Unix-like platforms so we could test and value how good (or bad) they are.
You have showed several interesting points which I'll start analizing, and I guess will help me decide when the right time comes for me to choose.
Thanks again.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: snoopy4ever on 2004-12-06 12:50 ]</font>
I guess I open a Pandora box here..,
I meant to open a discussion about why our options as users are limited in terms of Operating Systems..
Yes I admit we (or most of us) are on the specialized more deep side of computer music (some would say geeky), and that part of the market is not as big as software/hardware companies are pursuing the most.
Even though the OS's makers try to sell them as an all-purpose solution, the fact is that some are more suited for some tasks than others. It's up to the user to choose which one is best for the job.
I'd only like to see the same options we have so far for MAC and Windows on Unix-like platforms so we could test and value how good (or bad) they are.
You have showed several interesting points which I'll start analizing, and I guess will help me decide when the right time comes for me to choose.
Thanks again.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: snoopy4ever on 2004-12-06 12:50 ]</font>
OK, that's one for me :
First of all, Pixar is not the only post/FX/animation-shop using Linux. The list of more-or-less Linux-only shops includes:
- Pixar (Maya, Shake)
- ILM (XSI, Comptime)
- Dreamworks (Maya, XSI)
- Weta Digital (Maya, XSI)
- Sony Pictures Imageworks (Maya, XSI)
- Disney Studios (USAnimation, Maya, XSI, Photoshop)
- Digital Domain (Maya, Nuke)
- Tippet (Maya, XSI)
- Hammerhead (Maya, Digital Fusion)
Some important Linux-based software the studios use is in the brackets. (Photoshop is used on top of CXOffice, which supports Photoshop due to Disney).
And Maya works on almost every distro out there these days - things got better (I'm even using XSI on gentoo/ AMD64)...!
And no, support is not expensive for Linux - it's always expensive. The support you get with your $400 copy of XP pro is nothing to write home about. Even the 90 days support for a boxed copy of SUSE is way better.
kensuguro,
I think CWA cards are the last pieces of pro-audio equipment not supported on Linux these days...
symbiote,
why do you think the interface would be such a problem? Even if you run Gnome, you can still use a QT, KDE, TCL/TK or Motif application.
On the other hand, if Steinberg would port VST to QT, they had a native Windows, Linux, OSX, *BSD, AIX, whatever version with a simple recompile, that's what I'd call efficient...
And the average Linux geek is not an issue, he wouldn't buy VST for _any_ platform. But there are people out there that could afford (or even own) a copy of Windows and still prefer to use Linux!
dehuszar,
most of the graphics apps for Linux are ports from sgi IRIX (Maya, Shake, Amazon, Piranha, Nuke, Rayz, Houdini...), not Windows or Mac. AFAIK, not a single Mac application got ported so far, and almost every Windows port is buggy as hell. But porting from IRIX to Linux is a walk in the park.
And sinix,
a liitle off-topic, but maybe you should try SELinux or gentoo/ hardened for your servers, not one of those systems got hacked, yet...
:First of all, Pixar is not the only post/FX/animation-shop using Linux. The list of more-or-less Linux-only shops includes:
- Pixar (Maya, Shake)
- ILM (XSI, Comptime)
- Dreamworks (Maya, XSI)
- Weta Digital (Maya, XSI)
- Sony Pictures Imageworks (Maya, XSI)
- Disney Studios (USAnimation, Maya, XSI, Photoshop)
- Digital Domain (Maya, Nuke)
- Tippet (Maya, XSI)
- Hammerhead (Maya, Digital Fusion)
Some important Linux-based software the studios use is in the brackets. (Photoshop is used on top of CXOffice, which supports Photoshop due to Disney).
And Maya works on almost every distro out there these days - things got better (I'm even using XSI on gentoo/ AMD64)...!
And no, support is not expensive for Linux - it's always expensive. The support you get with your $400 copy of XP pro is nothing to write home about. Even the 90 days support for a boxed copy of SUSE is way better.
kensuguro,
I think CWA cards are the last pieces of pro-audio equipment not supported on Linux these days...
symbiote,
why do you think the interface would be such a problem? Even if you run Gnome, you can still use a QT, KDE, TCL/TK or Motif application.
On the other hand, if Steinberg would port VST to QT, they had a native Windows, Linux, OSX, *BSD, AIX, whatever version with a simple recompile, that's what I'd call efficient...
And the average Linux geek is not an issue, he wouldn't buy VST for _any_ platform. But there are people out there that could afford (or even own) a copy of Windows and still prefer to use Linux!
dehuszar,
most of the graphics apps for Linux are ports from sgi IRIX (Maya, Shake, Amazon, Piranha, Nuke, Rayz, Houdini...), not Windows or Mac. AFAIK, not a single Mac application got ported so far, and almost every Windows port is buggy as hell. But porting from IRIX to Linux is a walk in the park.
And sinix,
a liitle off-topic, but maybe you should try SELinux or gentoo/ hardened for your servers, not one of those systems got hacked, yet...
Wsippel:
How are the linux drivers?
I think you should just goto FreeBSD.
FreeBSD allows for closed source binary drivers. I think Creamware would feel a little more comfortable with FreeBSD. Much more then with linux and their source only drivers. ...unless Creamware has the time and money to back binary drivers like ATI does for their graphic cards. ...even they lag behind on them consderiably tho.
Plus, going the FreeBSD route will let you bypass all that ALSA nonsense, and go direct to hardware.
How are the linux drivers?
I think you should just goto FreeBSD.
FreeBSD allows for closed source binary drivers. I think Creamware would feel a little more comfortable with FreeBSD. Much more then with linux and their source only drivers. ...unless Creamware has the time and money to back binary drivers like ATI does for their graphic cards. ...even they lag behind on them consderiably tho.
Plus, going the FreeBSD route will let you bypass all that ALSA nonsense, and go direct to hardware.
Check this out not compatable with Scope but intresting.
http://www.ferventsoftware.com/index.php
http://www.ferventsoftware.com/index.php