OSX and Linux status update

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:04 pm

Why pay people to do the work when you can get them to do it for free?

Post by **hubird** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:33 pm

It's explained in this thread Braincel.
Thanks Grok for your fantastic contribution.
Now I'm sure CWA will stay away from this thread for sure.
I give it up.

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-01-03 18:50 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:52 pm

that's complete nonsense - people able to do the necessary ports with the expected quality in a reasonable amount of time don't do it for free.
There are tons of well paid jobs for qualified Apple developers.

It's a known fact for years (in IT industry) that (talented) beginners quickly start their own business once they've sought up everything they need. Period.

We all agree that Scope sounds great, that it has great routing capabilities etc - so how does it come that no major company just copies the idea ?
think twice, why ???

you can have a 5 million budget - it doesn't help much if you can hire at best 3 people with enough experience for the job (make a copy of SFP), who are supposed to need at least 3 years before anything could be released.
business decisions are done on a faster scale today - noone will invest in such a project.

back to CWA they'd be fools to invite anyone into further details under these conditions.

Willy's statement about the split of the developement process into system-near and abstract API based routines makes a lot of sense, technically.
Yet if a system isn't designed from the ground up in this way (and SFP obviously isn't) it's extremely hard (if not impossible) to split.
In most such cases a rewrite is more efficient...

another can of gaz, Tom

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:13 pm

Hi Wolfgang, your words goes in oposit directions, I guess it is just a misspelled or misused word

errh, yes. I meant it the positive way

wolf · Post by **wolf** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:13 pm

Hey Grok,

Not me, because of the reasons above

See, that is exactly what I said. Try it out and you'll see that it is a great device. Especially for live performances.

If you know more, you can share your knowing if it pleases to you.
If not, people will think and elaborate with the facts they know, even if they are incomplete. That's where a good communication is useful.

communication often has some flaws reagarding (mis)understanding

You wrote it: they still don't use. What about tomorrow?...

I wanna use my tools today, not tomorrow

And don't forget to make an update for your Step Sequencer to be able to run in 3/4 and 6/8! You promised me in an email that you have an idea on this, but as you say, I should not rely on promises made by a company, be it yourself. Thanks

I never promised anything, I just wrote "I have an idea". However, I'm still investigating as my idea turned out to be not thought until the end. I'll try harder to find a possibility for realizing this as want this feature by myself !

best
Wolfgang

[ This Message was edited by: wolf on 2005-01-03 17:16 ]

samplaire · Post by **samplaire** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:44 pm

Hi Sir Samplaire Copernicus,
As you ask us to believe you, it should mean that you have some sources of informations that we don't have. Could you explain yourself further, for us to get some reasons for a hope in some positives evolutions?

There is not much to explain. It's just if I were them I would do my best to earn money and earning money means do someone's bestto make good decisions. That's why I belive. Belive] doesn't mean know.

Anyway, I noticed that you too agree for a Linux port of SFP.

I didn't agree for some time (Linux seemed for me as a toy) but now I'm convinced it's very serious demand for it.

wsippel · Post by **wsippel** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:59 am

As far as I know, the Scope OS by itself has no dependencies at all, and should be pretty easy to port to any platform. The other huge part (IP wise) of SFP would be the DSP files, which are platform independent by design, and would not need to be open sourced, since they don't need to be ported.

Nvidia, for example, uses a OSS/ closed source development model for their Linux drivers as well: the driver consists of a compiled object (the 'core') with the sensitive parts, and an open source wrapper (kernel interface) that you compile for your kernel. The interface links to the 'core', the IP is protected, but the drivers still work on almost any kernel (if the architecture matches, eg IA32, AMD64, IA64).

And MPlayer, a cross-platform movie player, goes even further: it uses a loader (on Linux) that decodes audio/ video, utilizing unmodified closed source Windows DLL's (Windows Media, Quicktime etc). The player and the loader are OSS (GPL license), but the codec DLL's obviously aren't...

And the developers of the loader have never seen the codec DLL's sourcecode, the loader is based on available documentation and reverse engineering.

Tom, by the way:

>> that's complete nonsense - people able to do the necessary ports with the expected quality in a reasonable amount of time don't do it for free.

Then what do you think I'm here for...? That's bullsh*t, and I hope you know that. There are lots of extremely qualified developers doing that stuff for free, for the fun, the challenge and their idealism. Do you have the slightest idea how much FREE open source software you rely on every day? Software that was written for fun, or a specific need, without any commerical interest? That still meets and exceeds the quality of many commercial closed-source apps?

Granted, it's harder to find OSX devs willing to help for free, but it's very easy to find good Linux devs...

[ This Message was edited by: wsippel on 2005-01-04 11:02 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:00 pm

On 2005-01-04 10:59, wsippel wrote:
...And MPlayer, a cross-platform movie player, goes even further: it uses a loader (on Linux) that decodes audio/ video, utilizing unmodified closed source Windows DLL's (Windows Media, Quicktime etc).
...
...And the developers of the loader have never seen the codec DLL's sourcecode, the loader is based on available documentation and reverse engineering.

a.) tnx for an example of some applications designed for 'system independent' coding.
A DLL is build with that kind of independancy in mind. Quicktime isn't a format, but a wrapper and I assume the same applies to Mediaplayer.

So the Mplayer trick isn't exactly groundbreaking, but
b.) it's a nice example what you CAN do with reverse engineering

Tom, by the way:

>> that's complete nonsense - people able to do the necessary ports with the expected quality in a reasonable amount of time don't do it for free.

Then what do you think I'm here for...? That's bullsh*t, and I hope you know that. There are lots of extremely qualified developers doing that stuff for free, ...

...Granted, it's harder to find OSX devs willing to help for free,...

sorry to upset you, but I was actually referring to to those Mac developers, as your last sentence confirms

no disrespect to your work and passion, but (imho) it's the Mac port that's so urgently needed to gain back confidence in the pro audio studio scene and to polish CWA's scratched image.

on the other hand your work would be a great contribution to a less OS based embedded studio solution and much appreciated as such.

I may appear as from the money side of the street only, but I've seen far too much people changing their mind and intentions in the context of money - please excuse my occasional sarcasm

cheers, tom

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:09 pm

On 2005-01-04 10:59, wsippel wrote:
As far as I know, the Scope OS by itself has no dependencies at all, and should be pretty easy to port to any platform. The other huge part (IP wise) of SFP would be the DSP files, which are platform independent by design, and would not need to be open sourced, since they don't need to be ported.
...

imho the IP part is the interfacing of the DSP code by the GUI - you certainly have seen more details in that context than me - I'd consider it at least difficult to separate these domains.

cheers, Tom

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:12 pm

On 2005-01-03 16:33, hubird wrote:
It's explained in this thread Braincel.
Thanks Grok for your fantastic contribution.
Now I'm sure CWA will stay away from this thread for sure.
I give it up.

[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-01-03 18:50 ]

Don't bother, Hubird, this is not of so much importance. If not in this specific thread, Mr Hund could create his own if he decides it, as he already done in the past.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:27 pm

On 2005-01-04 12:00, astroman wrote:
(...)
Tom, by the way:

(...]that's complete nonsense - people able to do the necessary ports with the expected quality in a reasonable amount of time don't do it for free.(...)

Then what do you think I'm here for...? That's bullsh*t, and I hope you know that. There are lots of extremely qualified developers doing that stuff for free, ...

...Granted, it's harder to find OSX devs willing to help for free,...
sorry to upset you, but I was actually referring to to those Mac developers, as your last sentence confirms

no disrespect to your work and passion, but (imho) it's the Mac port that's so urgently needed to gain back confidence in the pro audio studio scene and to polish CWA's scratched image.

on the other hand your work would be a great contribution to a less OS based embedded studio solution and much appreciated as such.

I may appear as from the money side of the street only, but I've seen far too much people changing their mind and intentions in the context of money - please excuse my occasional sarcasm

cheers, tom

Mmmh... Open your eyes, Tom, Linux is the next major OS for audio pro, period.

...As Linux is currently the major OS for films, but neither Windows nor Mac OSX. And a major OS for professional video.

That's why I asked to Wolf: what about tomorrow?

And concerning your cynical (no offence intended) money oriented point of view, we're human beings, not money machines. The efficience of a money oriented point of view is not a certainty. Creamware was looking for money with the Noah, and see what happened.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:38 pm

[ This Message was edited by: braincell on 2005-01-05 01:14 ]

Kamurah · Post by **Kamurah** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 3:29 am

On 2005-01-03 14:04, wolf wrote:

4th creamware never promised a scope OSX version

Sorry to disagree with you Wolfgang.....

But Creamware DID promise a SCOPE OSX version.

In the old website FAQ's, there used to be a question addressing the fact that an OSX version was coming.

....additionally, I personally asked a CW employee on THEIR forum when an OSX version was coming. This was in September 2002, at that time I was informed an OSX version would be released April 2003. I was upset because the ORIGINAL deadline CW had set for the OSX version was in 2002.

So you see....

CW PROMISED.....multiple times....to provide an OSX version of SCOPE. (or SFP) and failed to deliver.

Additionally.....

NOAH was a great idea....however it had one critical flaw (IMO).

It DID NOT run SCOPE plugins. Let me repeat this so the gravity sinks in. IT DID NOT RUN SCOPE PLUGINS.

That was the purpose of the system. That is the ONLY thing that would have made it successful. If we could have loaded each and every plug that has been developed for SCOPE into it from day one.

Then I would have bought one....maybe two....and sold my cards and been in heaven. As it is, I bought nothing, because it only ran NOAH VERSIONS of the plugins....

Anyway....rant off. I still love my CW cards. I just absolutely cringe at failed potential.

....and THAT, is a concept Creamware is intimately familiar with.

Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:28 am

i've been out of the CW loop for a while but why is CWA developing for linux? Is there a true market for it?!? Is it not true that the majority of users are based on macs and pcs? Although linux is very powerful os (i use it myself for all my web server, networking and DB stuff) it's more complex to use and setup compared to mac and win os varieties.

Personally i think OSX should be the first priority and then windows. Also investing some R&D into new hardware (i.e. DSP cards)

In my opinion i think CWA are using resources in the wrong areas.

*shaking my head*

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:04 am

On 2005-01-04 17:27, Grok wrote:
...
Mmmh... Open your eyes, Tom, Linux is the next major OS for audio pro, period.
...

Grok, I've been (for example) through the web pages of 'JACK'...

no question, it's a well thought product, but the handling ? installation etc ? That's the way it was done 20 years ago.

I'm convinced the only 'professional' relevance of Linux will be stripped down embedded systems, where the OS isn't even visible to the user anymore. Noone wants to deal with that mess.

I agree to your prospection about 'the future' - and I don't distinguish too much between MacOSX and Linux.
There are technical differences, but of few relevance to regular users.

Some suppliers will preconfigure specialized Linux systems (to make it 'usable' at all for the non-tech interested).
Apple's approach is to cover the details by lots of fancy stuff, thus making it easier for them to draw customers to their additional 'services' via the internet.

I'm certainly aware of what's going on (and may even understand some of the reasons), yet (for me personally) the problem remains that I have worked on flawless systems for years that did their job without all those complicated setups - Linux and OSX don't get a different structure just because someone writes a smart installation routine

cheers, Tom

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:17 am

On 2005-01-05 05:28, vien wrote:
...
Personally i think OSX should be the first priority and then windows. Also investing some R&D into new hardware (i.e. DSP cards)

In my opinion i think CWA are using resources in the wrong areas.

using resources ? you may kindly consider their financial situation...

the Linux and OSX unified developement (as in wsippel's original project) is a great idea with big synergy potential.
The lack of Mac developers and intellectual property concerns do not change this fact - they are separate problems.

cheers, Tom

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:23 am

Why are we even talking about Macs in this thread. Forget Macs... nobody uses them okay?

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:38 am

braincell wrote:
Why are we even talking about Macs in this thread. Forget Macs... nobody uses them okay?

Maybe because they run on a much better version of Unix than Linux?

Also, an OS-X set of drivers would probably have more (commercial?) value to Creamware than Linux drivers...I'm sure that there're more Z-ers who'd appreciate OS-X drivers than Linux ones.

Royston

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:10 am

Grok wrote:

Mmmh... Open your eyes [...]
...As Linux is currently the major OS for films, but neither Windows nor Mac OSX

...er, hello? Sorry i can't let that go without some clarification. In which countries is that true? i work in the UK TV industry, know many editors (both video and film) and also know a few people in the USA too. They mostly use Avid, occasionally Final Cut Pro and they tend to be Mac's (some still OS9 BTW - it works) and increasingly PC (Avid Symphony, DS etc.)

Where's this huge Linux film/video community. France? i doubt it, and certainly not the UK and USA (read also Canada and Australia).

Mr A

[ This Message was edited by: Mr Arkadin on 2005-01-05 11:25 ]

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:32 am

you guys have way too much time on your hands